Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
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:
- an administrator action
- an action using an advanced permission
Administrative action review should not be used:
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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").
- for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) instead
- for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Wikipedia:Arbitration (ArbCom) instead
- for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.
- Instructions
- Initiating a review
- Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
- Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template.
- Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.
- You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{XRV-notice}} for this purpose.
- Use of the notification system is not sufficient.
- Participating in a discussion
Any editor may participate in discussing an action being reviewed. 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, experienced editor 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.
|
|
Tamzin's revdels at Hari Nef
59 edit revdels and 1 edit summary revdel
This is a self-requested review. An editor requested in #wikipedia-en-revdel connect the revision deletion of several edits giving the alleged deadname of Hari Nef. She was never notable under this name, and so under MOS:DEADNAME it is treated as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.
Some admins felt that revdel for such material was not explicitly covered under WP:CRD, but none went as far as to say that revdel was outright improper. After some discussion of applicable policies, I revdelled those edits and a few dozen older ones, for the following reasons:
- There is a history of revdelling such material, for instance at ContraPoints ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Laverne Cox ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- RD2 covers (emphasis original)
Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little to no encyclopedic or project value, or violates our biographies of living people policy.
WP:BLPPRIVACY is part of the BLP policy. As trans people's deadnames are routinely used in "insulting" or "degrading" fashions, I feel that both that prong and the BLP prong of RD2 are met. - Even were they not met, application of revdel, like any other tool, should be dictated by common sense. I would submit that it is common sense that we not host material that is both personally identifiable and offensive—about trans people or anyone else—and that arguments against this are excessively bureaucratic.
However, since I took this action knowing that several other admins would not have, I submit it here for review, in hopes of establishing a precedent that such an action is a valid application of or revdel. If no such consensus can be reached, I will seek an explicit clarification to RD2, but in my opinion this is a straightforward application of the existing policy.
(Not mentioned above is this third revdel, the removal of an edit summary containing a slur, as hopefully that's noncontroversial.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse: Seems non-controversial to me. Editors may also be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Should wording be added linking REVDEL as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING? which was opened about this sort of issue a few hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse obviously... who had an issue with this? Sigh — TNT (talk • she/her) 20:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. In the case of a living subject, WP:BLP absolutely applies to suppressing the deadname. In the case of a deceased subject, I'd extend the offensive material criteria to apply there, especially in the case of an "aggressive" outing of the deadname. (I think revdel is probably a sufficient action to take, although there might be circumstances where the material needs oversighted.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, but... - While I don't believe that BLP requires revdelling deadnames in all cases, it surely permits it in some cases, and it's really within admin discretion whether a particular case is one of those cases. I see no reason to second-guess Tamzin's judgment in this case. I say "but..." because this is a self-requested review, and the problem with self-requested reviews is that you'll almost always endorse because nobody is really making the argument against the action. So I'm also not sure who had a problem with this or why, and in the absence of knowing why, I think the action should be endorsed, but I don't think this really has much precedential value, because we're all only hearing one side of the argument. (For this reason, I don't really think self-requested reviews are very useful. If no one cares enough to actually challenge the action, consider it endorsed, it's probably not worth taking the time to discuss.) Levivich[block] 20:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- What Levivich said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. I don't understand why this is at all controversial? Deadnaming someone can be a BLP violation (it was in this instance) and BLP violations can be revision deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, but this should be oversighted: WP:OSPOL#1 makes clear that "non-public personal information" should be oversighted. Nef's birth name appears to be such a piece of information (let me know if it has been published somewhere with Nef's permission). The potential issues are identity theft and use for harassment. It is no different to publishing my birth name on Wikipedia, as I have not made it public. As such, WP:CRD#4 applies (so long as Tamzin has a reasonable belief that it may be OSPOL eligible, even if OSers end up rejecting oversight). However, even without this, CRD 2/3 apply. — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the deadname is given in a reliable source (and not just a newspaper that's generally reliable, but an article from a newspaper that is reliable), then I take back the above about oversighting. It appears that an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer may meet this condition, though I haven't seen it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse (as within discretion). Wikipedia should not be the place where a person’s personal information is first reliably published. Certainly this applies to the mainspace page, where it is considered reliable by most of the world, even if not by Wikipedia itself. This reasonably extends to the page history, which makes the revision deletion justified. I note at the birth name exists on the internet, but it is not reliably published, and that it is good that Wikipedia actively discourages primary source sleuthing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Philadelphia Inquirer is unreliable? Then why did Hari Nef still cite it in three places? And the same article that was used to ref her deadname, no less? I mean, sure, we shouldn't include her former name, and hiding the revisions to make it more inconvenient for random driveby anons to put it back in is justified, but let's not fool ourselves that we're doing anything more than making it inconvenient to put it back in. —Cryptic 17:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I haven’t seen that source. It’s behind a paywall. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Cryptic, yes The Philadelphia Inquirer is a reliable publication. Are you saying that it previously posted an article noting Nef’s birth name? Can you verify that, from a reputable reliable source? If the newspaper redacted the online version, that is important information and Wikipedia should respect the redaction, unless another reputable source commented on the redaction. I would discourage Wikipedia citing a microfiche copy of a printed version. Why was it redacted? Was it wrong? Did the newspaper consider it like a BLP violation? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- See my recent edits. —Cryptic 00:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can be slow at solving little riddles.
- If the subject’s birth name has been noted (is noted) in a reliable and reputable publication, then it is ok to include in the article, noting NOTCENSORED.
- If the subject’s birth name has never (but subject to redactions) been noted in a reliable and reputable source, then it should not be in Wikipedia mainspace, and subject to any admins discretion, may be quietly rev-deleted, subject to review (review by DRV or XRV or oversighters, I’m not sure, it probably doesn’t matter). SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
If the subject’s birth name has been noted (is noted) in a reliable and reputable publication, then it is ok to include in the article, noting NOTCENSORED
. WP:NOTCENSORED is never a reason to include something in an article (it is a reason not to exclude it) and WP:DEADNAME saysIf a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page [...] even if reliable sourcing exists.
(my emphasis). Revision deletion can be reviewed here, at AN or at AN/I but do note that doing so in a very high profile environment can be a poor choice for a (potential) BLP violation. Appeals and queries regarding oversighting can be sent to the Oversight team or to arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)- I think you’re talking a technical cross-point at me. DEADNAME, as a mere MOS line, cannot be the basis for revdeletion. If you think it should be, get it written into a tougher policy, such at WP:BLP. An MOS “should” does not trigger deletion policy.
- The justification for Tazmin’s revision deletions comes mainly from the angle of preventing Wikipedia being (mis)used as the primary reliable source for the BLP-dubious information. If there were a quality source providing the information, revdeletion would be unjustified. Some justification comes from WP:DENY. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- The revdeletions were consistent, although not explicitly covered, with multiple parts of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME. The information revdelled is easily considered private information of a living person. The REVDELetion of the private and personal information was not covered by WP:CRD, but is covered by Wikipedia:Revision deletion#HIDINGBEFORESIGHT, and this difference is an oddity. I recommend that WP:CRD be expanded to include “deletion of a living person’s personal private information that is unsourced or sourced only to primary sources”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- See my recent edits. —Cryptic 00:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Philadelphia Inquirer is unreliable? Then why did Hari Nef still cite it in three places? And the same article that was used to ref her deadname, no less? I mean, sure, we shouldn't include her former name, and hiding the revisions to make it more inconvenient for random driveby anons to put it back in is justified, but let's not fool ourselves that we're doing anything more than making it inconvenient to put it back in. —Cryptic 17:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd endorse this particular decision. What I do think is open to question is why, in 2022, the mechanism for anonymously requesting revision deletions is an irc channel?—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can email the oversight team asking for revision deletion. If you don't want the request to be associated with your Wikipedia account you can just use a throw-away email (although it is best to check it until you get a response in case we have any questions about the request). Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Discretionarily permitted, not obligated, not OSPOL - Cryptic notes that it is included in the PI. Now, I don't see notability established so we shouldn't include it, but it doesn't appear to be an OSPOL case (however, some DEADNAME cases could be). Actually agreeing to have it published is not required - yes, we wouldn't allow say, a stolen set of information be included, but journalistic publications don't only post information with the subject's sign-off. But, I concur that it's with the discretion. However, I would oppose any standard viewing it as inherently revdellable. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)