This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Before listing an administrator here, please try or note the following first:
|
Administrator Review is where Wikipedians discuss specific administrators who they believe have acted in a manner contrary to the policies or interests of the projects. This is a place for getting quick community insight into the actions of an admin. If the consensus is that the admin has acted properly, then the hope is that person requesting the review will accept the community feedback on the subject and choose not to "badger" the person with whom they disagree.
If, however, the community consensus is that the administrator has made an error, this is a perfect opportunity to bring their attention to the matter and offer immediate feedback without animosity. Administrators are people too, and they can make mistakes. The real measure of character is how we learn and change from those experiences. In some extreme cases, the community may decide that further corrective actions are warranted. In those instances, the Request for Comment system may be employed.
What this is
What this is not
I. | Create a review request.
Insert the {{subst:adminreview1}} tag at the top of the talk page for the administrator in question.
|
II. | Create the review discussion page.
|
III. | Notify users who monitor admin reviews.
Copy the tag below, and then click THIS LINK to open the review log page. At the bottom of the log page, insert:
replacing AdminName appropriately; also include the user's name in your edit summary. Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikipedia:Administrator Review/AdminName}}. |
Once consensus has been clearly reached or after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, a review should be closed. There is no bureaucratic or administrative action associated with an admin review, it is a completely informational process only. If consensus is that an admin has acted improperly, another user (ideally the initial accuser) may choose to make use of the RfC process, but any such followup would be completely separate from this.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Before listing an administrator here, please try or note the following first:
|
Administrator Review is where Wikipedians discuss specific administrators who they believe have acted in a manner contrary to the policies or interests of the projects. This is a place for getting quick community insight into the actions of an admin. If the consensus is that the admin has acted properly, then the hope is that person requesting the review will accept the community feedback on the subject and choose not to "badger" the person with whom they disagree.
If, however, the community consensus is that the administrator has made an error, this is a perfect opportunity to bring their attention to the matter and offer immediate feedback without animosity. Administrators are people too, and they can make mistakes. The real measure of character is how we learn and change from those experiences. In some extreme cases, the community may decide that further corrective actions are warranted. In those instances, the Request for Comment system may be employed.
What this is
What this is not
I. | Create a review request.
Insert the {{subst:adminreview1}} tag at the top of the talk page for the administrator in question.
|
II. | Create the review discussion page.
|
III. | Notify users who monitor admin reviews.
Copy the tag below, and then click THIS LINK to open the review log page. At the bottom of the log page, insert:
replacing AdminName appropriately; also include the user's name in your edit summary. Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikipedia:Administrator Review/AdminName}}. |
Once consensus has been clearly reached or after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, a review should be closed. There is no bureaucratic or administrative action associated with an admin review, it is a completely informational process only. If consensus is that an admin has acted improperly, another user (ideally the initial accuser) may choose to make use of the RfC process, but any such followup would be completely separate from this.