Wikipedia talk:Administrator Review

message: maybe useful as a home for discussions now held on WP:AN anyway. Admins are being reviewed already, so this will not change anything, it just adds a neat label to stick on what we're already doing. Unless there is some mechanism that will force admins of debatable behaviour to re-submit to RFA, this is not a solution. Serving admins re-submitting to RFA should especially be judged by their use of admin privileges: unlike first time RFAs, there will already be evidence on whether the editor in question is capable of restraining themselves from abusing admin privileges in content disputes: thus, concerns with admins should only address their use of admin buttons. Admins that are accused of misbehaviour as editors (viz., they didn't make use of their privileges) should be discussed in a regular user conduct RfC. dab (ᛏ) 10:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: also note that admins with a resident clique of detractors should not be made submit to this ordeal every other week. There should be a minimal delay between ARs, maybe two months, and of course re-opening an AR should include new events not already discussed. I would be open to being reviewed here (after people have had a chat with me directly about my alleged privilege abuse), but I would reject being reviewed here several times over by the same clique in the same affair (see my talkpage for background on why I am saying this). dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly disagree with any delay. This would create a situation where a less then acceptable complaint is made, then the admin is protected from all serious complaints for 2 months after. As for the same affair, I agree that the issue should end with that filing and not be reopened, unless one party of that issue does somethnig to bring it back to the forefront, such as banning a party for no discernable reason once the process has passed 2 months. So I dont think there should be a general rule regarding a time frame. I would like something more to come of this then community feedback, but I believe as long as it does not get over run by cliques on either side that its a positive first step for feedback. Very nice work Chairboy. --NuclearUmpf 12:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A solution looking for a problem. I thought this was the purpose of a user's talk page, AN/I, AN, RFC, mediation cabal, RFAr. I do not think that this will stop discussion in those locations. This will be another page I have to watchlist and monitor for socks, trolls, clueless newbies, and long term grudge matches. Think that this page takes the project farther from it primary goal. FloNight 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When people complain on AN/I they are told to file a RfC, so AN and AN/I seem not to be the place as most complaints there are people being told they are in the wrong place. Further AN/I is a community of admins so it makes an interesting environment, especially when its populated with the same general group of admins. --NuclearUmpf 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People are sometimes told that AN/I isn't the right place, but they shouldn't be... it says right at the top of the page that it is the spot for informal complaints about admin actions. Moving that sort of thing here could reduce the clutter on AN/I, but I worry about the more involved process here discouraging people (any process is 'more involved' than just typing up a message as they do currently at AN/I). In most cases I think what is needed is more intervention to help resolve the dispute than a determination of 'who was wrong'. --CBD 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest Giano thread on AN should have been an RFC...  it was swamping AN otherwise, and sometimes it's better to focus on summarizing discussions rather than having endless threads.  But besides a few extreme cases, I don't realistically see discussions being moved elsewhere, unfortunately.  (eg. even with the Giano discussion, when it was moved to a subpage the conversation died, and the conversation broke back out onto AN instead)  --Interiot 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful

message: In part III here this is written in all-caps but it doesn't appear to be a link. Could someone clarify how it is that a review log page is opened? Ranze (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Top of the page, "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference". Mkdwtalk 20:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS LINK