An administrator who hasn't pissed off at least 6 Wikipedia editors isn't doing his job, and should have his adminship revoked. Admins should be willing (and are expected by many) to wade into difficult issues, help sort out the POV pushers, vandals, crazies, etc. Someone who avoids controversy is shirking his or her duty. In fact, admins open to recall has it exactly backward. FeloniousMonk18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Vandals and crazies typically wouldn't be regarded as "editors in good standing" anyways. But, in general, I doubt it's that common to piss off six people at the same time; or to have pissed off so many people that they would outnumber the good editors who would be grateful for the admin's efforts. Kirill Lokshin18:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no shortage of vandals, crazies, chronic pov pushers and 3RR violators who have over 500 mainspace edits and over one month of tenure, meeting the "good standing" clause of admins open to recall. None whatsoever. And there's provision for them being at the same time that I've seen. As I point out, an administrator who hasn't pissed off at least 6 Wikipedia editors isn't doing his job, and the longer they are at in the more pissed off resentful editors there will be. That means that the most successful by that standard will be certain to be opposed. You don't think that problem editors don't hold grudges? And yes, those who are bitter and revengeful are far more motivated and vocal than those who have enjoyed the rewards of those admins who make the effort. FeloniousMonk18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
A variety of technicalities here:
Strictly speaking, the requirement would be six people endorsing a particular request; unless they monitor the talk page of the admin in question, parties unconnected to the incident are unlikely to drop by.
There's no prescribed venue for re-confirmation; certain options on the table (referring to ArbCom, for example) would be stacked against the problem editors.
Perhaps most importantly, there is no enforcement here; an administrator's following through on the re-confirmation is entirely voluntary. Ignoring a request would have no effect except on the general perception of the administrator as an honorable individual; in cases where the complaint was clearly made in bad faith, this should be fairly non-existent. Kirill Lokshin18:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's far too easy a way for nogoodniks to game the system to discredit admins. Requests for review, both legitimate and bad faith, will have the same effect of tarring an administrator with the brush of doubt, the presumption of innocence something altogether too rare outside of actual courts. And those admins who decline to include themselves as willing to stand for review will be already at a deficit, placing their "honor" in doubt by your reasoning, thereby doing the job of the nogoodniks for them. WP:RFC/ADMIN already serves to address issues of admin accountability, and the flaws in that system are still present in this one. FeloniousMonk19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just being dense here, but I really don't see the problem. This review page is only going to have self-nominations—in other words, a review would occur only when the administrator asked for one. The only place where complaints would occur otherwise is on the talk page of an administrator, and I fail to see what difference the existence of a (voluntary!) review process would make if some troll left a message on your talk page demanding that you be desysopped. Kirill Lokshin19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This concept will probably fail because I don't think any of the guys who have a chance to fail would go for a review or recall. I am reasonably familiar with most of the admins who are 'open to recall' and none of them are likely to get a bad review. And I can think of a dozen or two admins who will fail a new RfA and I don't ever expect to find their names listed there. Tintin (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about the voluntary admin review here, not Admin recall. FM's points about recall have been addressed at Category_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall in the past, I think. It may make sense to raise them again there, perhaps, though. To be clear, my volunteering to be a reviewee is not because 6 editors I respect have asked me to due to having issues, it's to get feedback on how I've done stuff so far, and therefore be a better admin. ++Lar: t/c16:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment
A major trouble that I see with the current editor review is that the requests are usually very vague. The requestors just say 'review me', provide an article or two, and leave it there. It is often too difficult to get much idea about the quality of his work by sampling a few edits out of a few thousand.
It would help if the guys who want to be reviewed here are very specific about what actions they want reviewed. Tintin (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this is unrelated to both the recall process and the historical non-voluntary review process WP:Administrator Review, which was not adopted. As discussed in the early proposal of this page, it's entirely informal and voluntary. –xenotalk03:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Good luck
This will be an interesting experiment. I wish it well. Getting the right balance between not enforcing NPA/CIVIL and not stifling honest feedback may be a key part of this. ++Lar: t/c11:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
A good idea I think, but with a few stipulations. I think for this to succeed, the community needs to be able to "bring" an admin. here, and allow it to run its course in the manner that WQA, AN, AN/I, etc. do. If this is used solely as a "self nom" type of deal, then we'll only get the administrators who are conscientious about their work, seeking ways to improve, and in general - we'll only see the cream of the crop here. If however, we can use this venue as a stepping stone, or even as a preemptive resource to address the admins that are headed down the wrong path, then I can see great value in this. as always, IMHO — Ched : ? 15:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like the soundly rejected Wikipedia:Administrator Review (note the capitalization difference). If one needs to bring an administrator's actions for review, there are probably better venues (such as AN, or RFC/U). –xenotalk15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I guess it does. And to be honest, I think if it had been toned down a bit (as it has here), to be a little less formal, a little less "hear ye, hear ye - this shall be official policy" in nature, it might have been more receptive to the community. That's why I like this venue. I know, just go to the admins/editors talk page - but sometimes you might want a little more third party observation. If I can (we can), have an area where we can say "Hey, User:ABC, you're really messing up here with your tools" and have a wider audience - without threatening to revoke any particular buttons, it could be a middle-ground. If we can get away from the stigma of the RFAR "hear ye, hear ye. Court is now in session" stuff, it might be a good thing. If Tom, Ched, Carol, and Bill can ask admin-editor "John" to step over here, and it's pointed out that "you're being a little over-eager on the block/delete buttons", without the "we're gonna take away your tools" threat - we might be able to avoid some of ArbCom stuff. I just want to be able to post a thread, and go say to "whoever", I don't like what I see, I've opened a thread at Admin review (Ched's notes the caps ;)). — Ched : ? 17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh.
This seems more like an exercise in getting people to tell you that you're a valued member of the community (similar to WP:TEA), but I don't think it's particularly effective at reviewing administrators. It also has the undertones of "Hey, hey, look at me, look how good I am at not pissing people off! Please reaffirm my self-worth!", which tends to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
As LessHeard vanUput it (who, ironically, is now undergoing a re-confirmation RFA), if there are no substantive or demonstrable issues with your admin-related actions, "why are you wasting my fucking time?"
I think the idea, is that /you/ are not the best judge of your own actions. If you've been a particularly bad admin, then a review might just show you what you've missed. Its not supposed to be about "hey you're a champ, ace. keep it up". You're supposed to grill these guys, and provide feedback, prompting them to adjust here and there with their retorts, how they block, deletion reasons, etc. In other words, its the reviewers who are at fault (lets say admin x gets a glowing review here, and 1 week later is at arb com; section reads long history of abuse) of ego stroking, and not the reviewee. Synergy22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I created the page because I was involved in a number of heated arguments and I wanted to see if I had perhaps taken things too far. Rather than a pat on the back, I was perhaps looking for a trout to the face. –xenotalk02:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we're destined to have a succession of forums that rise and fall where admins get feedback, and if the reviewers and reviewees get something out of it until the "Off with their heads!" mobs arrive, that's a good enough reason to let it ride for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
All users have talk pages for a reason. Until there's reason to believe that using user talk pages is untenable, that's the appropriate venue to discuss issues with an editor, admin or not. (Personally, there's a section on my talk page titled Redressing grievances (2). xeno had to steal this idea from somewhere, y'know. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
My review has turned out to be a case-in-point for MZMcBride's complaint, it seems. I genuinely believed that some issue or another would be pointed to in the course of the discussion, which I could use as an aid to improving myself, but that wasn't the case. To avoid further ego-inflation, I'm closing my review. AGK18:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
If no one has anything else to add, I'll un-transclude so that others move up a spot, but I'll keep the review open in my userspace. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Advice for reviewers
I've been meaning to pen something together, but I haven't really been inspired. So if anyone wants to take a stab at it, I think it might be helpful. –xenotalk19:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know Xeno, this is your project - tell us where you want to go with it. The things that come to my mind would be:
For reviewers
Be open, honest, and blunt. Say what you think, but don't be a jerk about it.
Point to and link to items that are of concern. If any admin has acted improperly in your opinion, show the actual diff that bothers you.
This isn't a "pat on the back venue", state clearly and maturely how the editor can be a better asset to the community.
Watch the page, and be willing to discuss any and all issues you may have with the admin.
For the Admins.
Link to any issues you're questioning yourself about.
Don't get defensive if an editor finds fault with one of your edits.
Listen to what is being said here - a couple extra functions on Wikipedia isn't a free pass to being some sort of "all-knowing" entity in real life.
What's the expectation for removing old reviews? There are several listed that have no comments for six months or more, one has been untouched since January 2010. I removed one where the user has since dropped his bit, but I wasn't sure if there was am established protocol around this. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I think maybe we should consider archiving some of the reviews, one has been there for over a year. Perhaps we should contacts the admin who's review it is before moving? ·Add§hore·Talk To Me!20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of archiving, shouldn't there be a link on the main age to the archives so that old reviews can be easily accessed? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to start archiving requests older than one year. Admins will always have the option to file more than one review by creating a second review page. Mkdwtalk22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, I've created a search box and provided a link to the subpage prefix as a listing for the purposes of archive. If the number of reviews starts exceeding one page we can explore creating a page that lists them all. Mkdwtalk16:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, as you may have seen at T:CENT and elsewhere, the possible closure and marking as historical of Editor review is under discussion at present. As ADRV is something of a sister process, you may be interested in contributing to the discussion, particularly as some have suggested that merger of that process with ADRV (i.e., expansion of ADRV's scope to also cover non-administrator editors) should be undertaken. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Refurbished
I've made a series of bold edits and gave the page and header a face-lift. For starters, I cleared out the reviews that have been there for more than one year, see #Removing old reviews. In many cases there were reviews there from 3+ years. I've redone the header layout, updated some of the wording, formalized a bit of the language (needs more work), and expanded the instructions by copying some from the process at editor review.
I want to save this process and not have it disappear like editor review. I may not be successful, but I wanted to give it a shot. One of the most valid complaints I have seen has been the feeling of the inability to have a venue to scrutinize and give feedback to editors with the sysop tools (admins). Additionally, becoming a sysop has generally meant a level of service to the editorial community above and beyond simply being an editor. This venue allows a welcoming opportunity away from the talk page to give feedback that is being expected.
As such, I am hoping that in clearing away some of the old reviews, it will refresh the process and those checking in will see that it is a page that is being updated and turned over. Furthermore, even if the page is empty, it may lead to concentrated efforts to provide feedback when reviews are listed (as we see at RFA). Any feedback on my changes to the process are welcome. I realize this could be somewhat construed as an effort to direct traffic and/or credit at my own review, in which I'm willing to close my review, if this concern is brought up. Cheers, Mkdwtalk22:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Let be sure I understand this...
Should only the admin in question begin the review process on him or herself or can anyone nominate an admin to be reviewed? I know this is a much more general review and isn't about particular grievances. I just was under the impression anyone could nominate an admin for review. Was I wrong in this assumption or did I miss the fine print? Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Generally undergoing an Administrator review is a voluntary process in which the person in question must agree to it in advance. There is no fine print, but like Editor Review, it was done at the discretion of the person of whom would be reviewed. The purpose of a review is the accept and receive constructive feedback. If the person in question doesn't want or agree to a review, then the purpose of the review is somewhat pointless and then could become a place to bash someone publicly without their presence. I think you could talk to them on their talk page and request they undergo one. Once you create an administrator review page and transcluded, it's essentially open. Mkdwtalk21:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Clearly from having to had ask this question I'm no wiki-wizard, but I think maybe there should be some (more?) explicit advisements of this so other genius editors such as myself don't make the mistake of trying to do these ourselves. just as alternatively, why not just open it up to any admin, agreed upon or otherwise? I think it's a bit pessimistic to see such a good venue for constructive criticism as something largely pointless and/or turning ugly. Even if the admin doesn't go out of their way to agree to it, it would be hard to imagine one of you wouldn't pay attention to what a general consensus of editors think of your approaches. You are in a position of special power after all, why not create yet another realm for transparency that's not issue based? Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I've seen some pretty ugly Editor and Administrator Reviews in my day, and those were the ones the editors were welcoming advice. It's important to note that talk pages are essentially the de facto medium in which you may address a problem or leave feedback to an administrator. There are also other venues in which you can launch complaints about sysops. Further, sysops are very familiar with this process as it occurs on a daily basis for most of us. Perhaps instructions could be left that a nomination may be made on the respective person's talk page and if they accept then it's transcluded. This is essentially the way WP:RFA operates. Just a thought but maybe the community has other ideas. Mkdwtalk16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
