Wikipedia:Administrative action review

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:

1. an administrator action
2. an action using an advanced permission

Administrative action review should not be used:

1. 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)

2. 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.

3. 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.
4. 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").
5. for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
6. for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Wikipedia:Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
7. for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.

Instructions
Initiating a review

1. Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
2. Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template.
3. 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.

Start a new discussion

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.

Unilateral overturning of a close by Seraphimblade

Action: Reopened a closed RfC while the close was still being discussed at AN [1], twice [2]

User: Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

S Marshall 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, Aaron Liu and BilledMammal challenged the close on two separate grounds and invited comment from the closer, participants, and uninvolved editors. So far so routine.

Seraphimblade 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,[3] 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 Serial Number 54129 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. – 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)

• (edit conflict) 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. – 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. – Joe (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: 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)

  @Aaron Liu: What does "endorse archiving" mean in this context? – 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. – 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)

  @RAN1: 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, S Marshall 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 Seraphimblade 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)