Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review

RFC text
From Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals: "Create a new process, Administrative action review (XRV), that will determine whether an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy. XRV will use a structured discussion format, open to all editors and closed by an uninvolved administrator, to reach a consensus on whether an action or set of actions is endorsed or not endorsed. Acting on this consensus, if necessary, is deferred to existing processes.


 * The goal of XRV is to provide a focused and constructive venue in which admins and other advanced permissions users can be held accountable to the community.
 * Any action, or set or related actions, requiring an advanced permission and not already covered by an existing process (e.g. WP:DRV for deletions), may be referred to XRV.
 * A structured discussion format, closed by an uninvolved administrator, will be used to reach a consensus on whether the action should be endorsed or not endorsed.
 * Participation in XRV is open to all editors.
 * The purpose of XRV is solely to reach a consensus on whether the use of the permission was appropriate, not to remove permissions. Acting on that consensus is deferred to existing processes:
 * Individual actions that are not endorsed can be reversed by any editor or administrator;
 * 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 WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFARB report, as appropriate."

Question
I was unable to find specific instruction, so I am going to ask: is this page specifically design only for admins to seek review of actions of other admins, or editors are allowed to request the same? ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Santasa99: Any editor in good standing can request review subject to the instructions on the first page. I updated the instructions to specify this. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lev, I missed to read part below the boxed text - it is a touchy subject for me to seek a review on actions of admin so I was/I am a bit nervous. Thanks, I appreciate it really. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't miss it, I literally just added it after reading your question :-) Levivich (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha, :-) nervousness, not the best condition, I'll tell you. Cheers, Lev, and thanks. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  23:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, RE XRV revert, on one hand, speedy closes and variations on them threaten the respect of XRV, but on the other, XRV is not a forum for SOCKs, and your WP:DENY action was justified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that we should generally not revert or otherwise close reports unless exceptional circumstances arise. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Request of opinion in dispute
Hello administrators. I am currently in a dispute with an administrator, but it may not be suitable for the noticeboard itself. I was wondering if uninvolved administrators are willing to provide input as part of the dispute resolution process. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * By my count, this is at least the sixth venue on which you've attempted to raise this issue, despite it having been indicated to you repeatedly that that behavior is inappropriate    .  "My feelings are hurt because an administrator correctly told me that continuing a certain behavior would be likely to lead to a block" is not, in fact, an ongoing dispute.  This is not the first time you have engaged in this kind of disruptive forum-shopping and grudge-holding; if you continue to pursue this issue in any further venues, I will seek administrative attention to address your conduct.  --JBL (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Per JayBeeEll. Calling a warning for disruption a dispute does not make it so. On the other hand, bludgeoning the process in multiple venues is potentially disruptive.  Suggest an immediate moratorium on Thinker78's campaign.   ——Serial  20:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Serial Number 54129 I have to point out that JBL is an involved editor who I don't consider at all objective because of the kind of interactions they have had with me. For example, I contacted JBL regarding an issue, adding a post in their talk page, "Please read how consensus work". JBL decided it was a good response to simply remove my post and state in the edit summary, "rv tedious whining -- please do not post here again unless it is required that you do so".
 * For some reason, even though they have asked me in such an uncivil fashion not to post in their talk page, they keep intervening around in posts I make in talk pages. Also, I believe JBL is misconstruing the replies I received and I will reply in their talk page given that they are accusing me inappropriately.
 * Regarding bludgeoning, the reason I have contacted multiple venues is because I have been unable to get an input in the dispute, which is part of the dispute resolution process. Per WP:CONTENTDISPUTE,
 * But again, no editor has so far participated in the discussion, that's why I proceeded to contact other editors before too much time passes.
 * I will request to @JayBeeEll to stop undue interactions with me trying to portray me in a negative light. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe the reason why no editor has participated in the discussion is that they agree with JBL, but prefer not to say so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Bolded !vote by OP
, the point of boldface on Endorse or Do not endorse is mainly to make the closer's life a little easier. You've already expressed your overall view in your opening statement, and it'll be counted. You are welcome to elaborate later, but it's misleading to add another bolded statement of your preference. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, FFF. I'm not going to argue about this. I thought my follow-up statement after the 'vote' was pretty clear: "Additional input from an involved editor (also the OP)." Hopefully, the XRV closer is a human being who understands the subtlety of the English language. (Don't outsource this job to AI ;)) XMcan (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you won't argue, I won't either! Happy editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and by the way, FFF, you have had prior interactions with both me and the editor in question. May I ask why you haven't 'voted' or said anything? (Of course, feel free to ignore this inquiry ;) ) XMcan (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been following, but I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said. I do anticipate participating in a follow-up policy/guideline discussion about talk pages of blocked editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Archiving of unclosed threads
From the beginning it was decided that all XRV reviews should be formally closed (even if it's just "nothing to do here") and therefore that they should not be archived before being closed. This hasn't come up until now because threads have always been closed before the bot was triggered, but it happened with Administrative_action_review/Archive_2. Can anyone think of an elegant way to prevent this? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Could the bot be configured to only archive threads with archive top? 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 08:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis could probably handle that (see WP:REREQ and WP:CR for comparable examples). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To be more specific: the bot can archive when a template like Archive top is added, but it'll do so immediately (within a day or so) rather than after a waiting period. It's a trade-off: do we want discussions archived after x days of inactivity (meaning unclosed discussions may end up archived) or immediately after the closure template is added (meaning people may not see the closure before it's archived)? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be enough people who watch this page (and so few discussions) that I wonder if we could just not have automatic archiving at all and instead just archive threads manually when it feels appropriate to do so. That's how it's done at pages like ARCA where discussions have to be closed before they are archived. In this case you wouldn't have to be a clerk to do so. Maybe we could set a ground rule like "If a thread has been closed for x days, any editor may archive it".  Pinguinn     🐧   05:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think something like Pinguinn's idea (my suggestion would be 7 days) is good, perhaps with a note than an admin uninvolved with the actions(s) being discussed can archive sooner if there is some specific reason for doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree this makes the most sense. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24
CurryTime7-24 is engaging in forms of disruptive editing regarding the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony and Mainland Japan articles solely to suit his personal opinions and ignoring the counterevidence that debunks his claims by obfuscating historical accounts and dismissing a source I provided. See User talk:DaRealPrinceZuko DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sigh... other user is talking about this edit; they added Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony to a list of territories legally defined by the Empire of Japan as gaichi (constituent external colonies and territories). According to this Kotobank entry, the term specifically referred to territories that were under Japan's legal control prior to its defeat in 1945. The meaning of this term is very narrow. This study on Japanese colonialism by Kan Kimura discusses the 1920 and 1943 laws that legally defined what the naichi ("Japan proper") and gaichi were: this farm is never mentioned. Neither any of the cited sources in the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony article nor elsewhere I checked in a quick web search turned up anything that confirmed the other user's assertion, which seems to be based on their misunderstanding of the term "colony". According to Webster's Dictionary, a "colony" is defined as "an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control", as well as a "a group of people who settle together in a new place". All evidence makes clear that the latter usage was certainly intended in the naming of this colony.
 * To be clear, I'd have no problem with this user's edit if they simply provided evidence to prove their assertion that this farm in central California was a legal constituent territory of the Empire of Japan. I'd gladly retract my objections if they did. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just realized that the source the other user says I dismissed is this one from the website of Walk the Farm, a Nisei farming organization established in 2011 to assist farmers affected by natural disasters. They do not run the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony (that would be California State Parks). Even if they did, the cited link states that the Japanese immigrants that founded Wakamatsu did so in order to pursue "[their] unique version of the American dream". Nowhere does it say that these settlers sought to establish a gaichi colony for the Empire of Japan, which according to other cited sources in the article they were fleeing because they ended up on the losing side of the Boshin War. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)