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

   This includes any action that may be deemed functionally equivalent to an administrator action even when it is not technically an administrator action, because it was an action of an administrator asserted by the administrator to have been performed in a capacity exclusive to administrators (usually actions associated with the conventional role of administrators in certain processes, even when they do not require the use of administrative tools).

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.

Permanent ban of Hocikre

Action: Log ID 164025646, the blocking of user Hocikre at 05:43, 25 August 2024

User: Graham87 (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

I agree with @Graham87 @331dot that the adding of headings to large numbers of stub articles by @Hocikre was unnecessary and disruptive, however, the action taken is excessive. Hocikre was permanently banned. Not asked to stop their actions, not warned formally, nor even given a temporary ban of 24 hours to make them stop while communicating the reasons why they should not be doing this. While the actions of Graham87 and with the backing of 331dot were taken in good faith without malice or bias, their actions are a mistake that should be reversed. If Hocikre is reinstated I will undertake to educate them about the whys and wherefores of good layout and checking the MOS rather than relying upon other editors to say "no". 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@MtBotany, I think you're misunderstanding what "indefinite" means. It isn't permanent. It means that the editor is blocked until they can reassure an administrator that the problem(s) that led to the block will not recur. Schazjmd (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You say Hocikre was permanently banned. All I see is an indefinite block; WP:BLOCK vs WP:BAN. Please clarify. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, you are correct. I'm almost never involved in these sorts of discussions and I should have been more careful in selecting the right term. If allowable should I correct the request? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :Just clarifying, "indefinite" doesn't mean permanent, it just means that there is no automatic expiration date. And a block is not a ban in Wiki terms. But at first glance it does seem too severe as a fist step. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it would have been helpful if someone had told Hocikre flat-out "no more headings", but looking at the edit history, it appears that an admin noticed the disruption and made a block to stop it (then spent a lot of time cleaning up weeks of edits that had gone unnoticed). Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

An indefinite ban without warning does seem wildly excessive, especially when the subject is then treated to the sentence "Right now you're a net negative to the project". There are kinder ways to deliver the message that a user is making a big mess of something, and I personally would rather be greeted by the traditional solution, and failing that, I think a week-long block would've gotten their attention just fine. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought that was actually a pretty mild comment, I'd rather be told that than "you made a big mess that others had to clean up". 331dot (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised. I find the latter (a description of what happened) much less insulting than the former (a judgment of the editor's worth). Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally I find "you made a lot of unnecessary work for other people" more of a judgment. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Surprised again, but I guess there's no point in discussing this particular thing further (de gustibis non est disputandum...). I'd hate for this to turn into a vote of which is more judgemental. I certainly don't think you were trying to be mean. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Might be a cultural difference? I very much fall on floquenbeam's side here --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Could be, additionally all of us 8 billion humans react to things differently. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• I can see how an indef block might eventually have been needed, but a warning first - even just one! - would have been much better. The message under the block notice and the unblock decline seem unnecessarily harsh to me, too. I understand that good faith disruption is, by definition, disruptive. But let's not forget that it's also, by definition, good faith, too... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, unless someone can point me to actual English language problems, it was kind of questionable to say "I see you're from Uganda, you should try your native language Wikipedia", when (1) English is an official language of Uganda, (2) I see no evidence they have an English language deficiency, and (c) believe it or not, people that don't live in English speaking countries are still capable of speaking English. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  True, the follow-up language was mean. Schazjmd (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  My intention was not to be mean. As I just told Floquenbeam above, I find what I said milder than "you made lots of work for other people and wasted their time". Maybe that's just me. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Graham87 's decision might turn out to be right, but I think Hocikre should be given a chance at least. Looks like they were blocked without any real warning. A block of one week might have been better. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• This edit was described as "particularly ridiculous" on the blocked user's talk page, but at first glance I am not seeing the problem with that edit. Just to double check, am I missing something? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Novem Linguae: I haven't encountered a heading titled with a word in the past tense for many years. I have no objection an unblock in principle, but I would also like this user to stop making random paragraph adjustments. On reflection some of what I said was probably too harsh. Graham87 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I've decided that an unblock would be the wisest course of action here so I've reversed my block. Graham87 (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this can be closed with no further action. Graham87 was obviously at the end of his tether but has now reversed the block. Is there a way to make it even clearer that indefinite ≢ permanent and that an indefinite block can (as in this case) be shorter than any timed block? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• If possible, as it's a similar case, is there any input on the appeal of User talk:Rager7? They were blocked by Graham87, who was rightfully irritated by the errors being made that needed clean-up, but with little warning and straight to an indef. I'm extremely hesitant to apply WP:ROPE when the blocking admin disagrees with an unblock. A bit more input would be helpful.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Rager7 should probably be unblocked as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  A little more context: I don't mind a whole lot if someone is a little quicker than many to block. I don't mind if it is indefinite right off the bat, as long as it is clear to the target of the block that indef doesn't mean permanent. But then you have to be willing to unblock when a semi-decent unblock request is made. Any two of (a) quick to block, (b) straight to indef, and (c) requiring a perfect unblock request can be reasonable for a good faith editor making a lot of mistakes, but the three together is too Kafkaesque. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)