Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Administrative action review(XRV/AARV) determines whether use of theadministrator toolsor otheradvanced permissionsis consistent withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to allconfirmed 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 theinstructionsbelow.

Purpose

Administrative action review may be used to request review of:

1. anadministrator action
2. anaction using anadvanced permission

Administrative action review shouldnotbe used:

1. torequest an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process

   Forreview of page deletionsorreview of deletion discussion closures,useWikipedia:Deletion review(DRV)

   Forreview of page moves,useWikipedia:Move review(MRV)

2. to ask toremove a user's permissions:

   Permissions granted atWP:PERMmay be revoked by an administrator if XRV finds them to be misused.

   Repeated or egregious misuse of permissions may form the basis of anadministrators' noticeboardorincidents noticeboardreport, or arequest for arbitration,as appropriate.

3. to arguetechnicalities and nuances(about what the optimal action would have been, for example), outside of an argument that the action was inconsistent with policy.
4. to ask for a review ofarbitration enforcement actions.Such reviews must be done atarbitration enforcement noticeboard( "AE" ), at theadministrators' noticeboard( "AN" ), or directly to the Arbitration Committee at theamendment requests page( "ARCA" ).
5. forurgent incidentsandchronic, intractable behavioural problems;useWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents( "ANI" ) instead
6. forserious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking;useWikipedia:Arbitration( "ArbCom" ) instead
7. for a block marked with any variation of{{CheckUser block}},{{OversightBlock}},or{{ArbComBlock}};Contact the Arbitration Committeeinstead
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.

Instructions
Initiating a review

1. Before listing a review request,try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
2. Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template.
3. Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.

   You must leave a noticeon the editor's talk page.You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.

   Use of thenotification systemis not sufficient.

Start a new discussion

Participating in a discussion
Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. 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 bulletedendorseornot 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 administrator 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 isendorsed,not endorsed,or if there isno 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 atWP:PERMmay 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.