Wikipedia talk:Requests for review of administrative actions

message: What is this?  A proxy war of anti-H's?  One for each new attempt? - Texture 22:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're unfamiliar with our old friend Michael, read up on him sometime.  He has an unhealthy fixation on Hephaestos for reasons best known to Michael.  He reappears sometimes, and is a bizarre chapter in Wikipedia's history. Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proxy war 

message: I am reposting this here, because I thin it is more relevant ;)
I agree that the purpose of this page is to review admin actions and, if necessary, hold them accountable. I think that the "good", "doubleplusgood" etc comments undermine the credability of something that should be taken seriously. We should not let our personal feelings about the complainants spill over onto this page, which should be solely for 'reviewing the actions of admins'. We should restrict ourselves here to discussions of the merits of lack thereof of the complaint or the action. A simple "this is without merit" does not do justice to even the most frivilous complaint. A one sentence explanation of an action does not seem to much to ask, and it does seem reasonale that, instead of simply saying that it is "good" that the questioned action took place, we should either keep our counsel, or contribute something more constructive. Mark Richards 16:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made an expanded response to Wik's claim in accordance with Mark's request that I believe was implied by other responders. - Tεxτurε 16:48, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriousness

message: In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ), the page will be deleted.
Please note: This page is for review of actions that are limited to use by administrators only, specifically these actions and their converses:
* protection
* deletion
* blocking users
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves) please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
----
*(Example sysop | talk | contributions)
===Statement of the dispute===
This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct.
*Description: 

===Powers misused===
*Protection (log):
:#
*Deletion (log):
:#
*Blocking (log):
:#
===Applicable policies===
*Protection policy
:#
*Deletion policy
:#
*Blocking policy
:#
*Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links)
:#
*Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):
:#
*Other users who endorse this dispute (sign with ~~~~):
:#
===Response===
This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy 

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
#
===Outside view===
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. 

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
#
===Discussion===
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
====Comments on this template====
If we decide to use this format, I'd also like to use subpages for each complaint, for reasons of space and clarity; I don't especially care whether the subpages are linked to RfC or to this page (or both). —No-One Jones 19:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I yanked that bit straight from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user: there, I think its purpose was to prevent every petty conflict of egos from ending up on RfC. Both certifying users had to show evidence of failed attempts to resolve the conflict, thus demonstrating that the user whose conduct was disputed was, in fact, misbehaving. I don't know if it's necessary here: a simple demonstration, by one user, that a sysop misused his or her powers and ignored attempts at discussion, might be sufficient. Sysop-only powers are held to slightly stricter standards than ordinary editing actions, are they not?  —No-One Jones 23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed template

message: All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
</div>
====Comments on this template====
If we decide to use this format, I'd also like to use subpages for each complaint, for reasons of space and clarity; I don't especially care whether the subpages are linked to RfC or to this page (or both). —No-One Jones 19:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I yanked that bit straight from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user: there, I think its purpose was to prevent every petty conflict of egos from ending up on RfC. Both certifying users had to show evidence of failed attempts to resolve the conflict, thus demonstrating that the user whose conduct was disputed was, in fact, misbehaving. I don't know if it's necessary here: a simple demonstration, by one user, that a sysop misused his or her powers and ignored attempts at discussion, might be sufficient. Sysop-only powers are held to slightly stricter standards than ordinary editing actions, are they not?  —No-One Jones 23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: If we decide to use this format, I'd also like to use subpages for each complaint, for reasons of space and clarity; I don't especially care whether the subpages are linked to RfC or to this page (or both). —No-One Jones 19:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I yanked that bit straight from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user: there, I think its purpose was to prevent every petty conflict of egos from ending up on RfC. Both certifying users had to show evidence of failed attempts to resolve the conflict, thus demonstrating that the user whose conduct was disputed was, in fact, misbehaving. I don't know if it's necessary here: a simple demonstration, by one user, that a sysop misused his or her powers and ignored attempts at discussion, might be sufficient. Sysop-only powers are held to slightly stricter standards than ordinary editing actions, are they not?  —No-One Jones 23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on this template

message: How long does one of these complaints need to stay here before it gets deleted?  RickK 23:36, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
:For as long as necessary until you get banned. --Cantus 23:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, Rick, that if a complaint has gone 2 weeks without comment, it should be removed.  That's personal opinion only, of course.  The complaint remains in the page history - I don't know if there is any additional archiving being done. Jwrosenzweig 00:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting items from the article page

message: (moved from project page by —No-One Jones)
Request  here ? was removed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO place in public Wiki space where this can be put without it being immedately removed or redirected by wikipolice to some 'quarantaine quarters. On the contrary, if admin complainants care to carry active editors in ludicrous "arbitrations" without trying to resolve dispute first, such complainants are heard and pampered viz. titillated. So they feel encouraged to "admin" even more in such masturbatory styles. Alas, they are also, by this very action, de facto, and automatically requesting review of their own administrative actions, AND desysoping. As I ALREADY stated, redirecting or CUTTING my request is NOT, repeat NOT a REVIEW of admin actions - but Wikipolice "maintanance" as usual. I therefore LEAVE WIKI having made my final point. - Good bye, and good riddance :O) irismeister 14:27, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
:Fascinating as this is, I can't really understand what admin action you are asking folks to review. Can you clarify, or it will be removed from here too. Mark Richards 17:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration and de-adminship. Proof of blatant double standards 

message: So everyone seems to agree that this template is a Good Thing, and that we should use it; now the only questions are: When should we convert the page to this format, and should we continue using Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions, or should we link these disputes from Wikipedia:Requests for comment? —No-One Jones 18:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template: When and where? 

message: WP:AN currently says that for "Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents" one should go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, yet this redirect currently points to WP:AN. Is there a consensus to re-target the redirect to ANI? betafive 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect target