Wikipedia talk:Mass action review

Some current and past examples of mass actions being brought to review
(feel free to add more examples to this list, not intended to be complete)
 * Deletion review/Log/2022 July 12/Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048
 * Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/Miscellany for deletion/Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox/Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904

So, a brief summary of the above from my understanding: deletion review and deletion discussion venues seem to be able to handle reviewing mass creations/deletions, but mass actions of other sorts tend to end up at AN/I, which is admittedly unideal. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Outcomes
This "shouldn't" happen but it does: An editor is blocked or TBanned at ANI for problematic mass article creation and there's consensus that their creations should be deleted/merged/redirected, but that task is deferred to AfD or a Wikiproject-level RfC where editors who disagree with the consensus are able to block the implementation or throw up so many procedural objections that the articles end up being addressed on an individual basis. If the outcome requires a large number of changes, it would be very helpful to outline exactly what changes need to happen and what the process is, for example a specific list or set of criteria for articles to be deleted so that there's no further argument over implementation. –dlthewave ☎ 18:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * One of the ideas behind this is that by having a venue to deal with potentially problematic actions is that the single venue would (where there was a consensus that some large-scale action needed taking) be the place that action was implemented. For example if there was a consensus that all articles created by user:Foo that met some criteria should be deleted, then no further consensus to delete would be required it would be actioned here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A noticeboard, rather than a review board
I believe there are three separate topics that we need to be able to address: What I don't think we should address is whether there is a consensus for the mass actions; there are better locations to determine the communities consensus than this.
 * 1) Whether an editor is engaged in mass actions
 * 2) How to stop the mass actions
 * 3) Whether the mass actions should be reverted

For all of this, I believe an unstructured noticeboard is better; it allows more flexibility, and it allows us to have less focus on the editor - such as when the actions were years or decades in the past, or when the editor is already retired or banned. BilledMammal (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Your comments presuppose that the mass actions should be stopped, which is not always going to be the case. They should be paused during the discussion, but discussion could conclude that the actions are appropriate and should be resumed - this will likely be the case if there was prior consensus for the action in an appropriate venue and there is no indication that the consensus has changed. Alternatively, it is possible that the discussion will conclude that although prior consensus wasn't sought it would have been granted if it had been and requiring a separate discussion elsewhere would be pointless bureaucracy.
 * The unstructured noticeboards already exist in the form of WP:BOTN, WP:BOTREQ, WP:AN and WP:AN/I. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Would this overlap with WP:XRV?
It seems like some functions of the board may overlap with WP:XRV, since many mass actions are admin actions. An example would be a large amount of mass deletions against consensus. We'd need to be careful not to have too many overlapping boards around. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4D11:E6D2:10E8:4859 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the actions in the section above were done using administrative tools, though some were done using AutoWikiBrowser. I can't recall any issues with mass deletions occurring without a prior community consensus reached through discussion, which is understandable, since there's a high probability the administrator would end up losing their privileges if that happened. isaacl (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Deletion review/Log/2022 July 12, which I linked above, is reviewing a mass deletion. I would say that it was without a prior community consensus reached through discussion, as the ANI disucssion that preceded the deletion focused entirely on conduct maters and did not come to what an admin closing a deletion discussion would consider a consensus to delete although it appears I may be in the minority in thinking that. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The initial mass action was the creation of the redirects, so that would be the mass action to be discussed, as it was at the incidents' noticeboard. The action to restore the status quo was the result of the community discussion; a subsequent review of that would have the somewhat different scope of a closure review, since it's the evaluation of consensus being reviewed. (Which kind of argues against having too many fine distinctions in noticeboard venues; perhaps the disputes about how to apply different English Wikipedia guidance should all be handled at the policy Village Pump, for example.) isaacl (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Some overlap with other venues is inevitable, but given that XRV handles individual actions by administrators and this venue proposes to deal with mass actions by anyone I don't think there will be significant or problematic overlap. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Take this to WP:VPI
This looks like a promising proposal that should be taken to VPI immediately. Would anybody be willing to do that? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3C0E:950E:60A2:98F7 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)