This page is in preparation (Tony1).
 | This page in a nutshell: AdminReview is a process for dealing with users' grievances against (i) the use of administrator privileges in a way the user believes has breached policy and has been unfair to them, or (ii) the threat to use those privileges in such a way. AdminReview does not issue binding decisions, enforcement or judgements on any Wikipedian. Instead, it relies on the good faith of participants to achieve favourable outcomes. |
Administrators ("admins") are editors who have been given access to "tools" that are not available to others. The community places considerable trust in admins, who perform essential maintenance such as page protections and deleting material, as well as enforcing policies. In particular, they can disable the ability of users to edit the site ("blocking"). However, they occasionally make mistakes or fail to uphold the high standards they are held to.
Admins are required to follow a policy governing the exercise of their administrative privileges. AdminReview is a community-driven process to provide users with an independent review of administrative actions and behaviour, in a calm, deliberative manner. It is run by seven elected Coordinators (four non-admins and three admins) to provide an independent evaluation of events for users which have grievances against administrative actions or behaviour. The rules of AdminReview are embodied in a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Information about the Coordinators can be found here.
The goals of AdminReview are to:
- build the community's respect for the admin system;
- bring users and admins closer together in the pursuit of the project's goals; and
- retain valuable members of the community by making sure their grievances receive a fair hearing.
It may be that the best way of launching AdminReview is as a subcommittee of delegates appointed by ArbCom, which is Wikipedia's peak body for ruling on user behaviour. This has yet to be determined.