Wikipedia:Administrative action review/header

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:
 * 1) an administrator action
 * This includes any action that may be deemed functionally equivalent to an administrator action even when it is not technically an administrator action, because it was an action of an administrator asserted by the administrator to have been performed in a capacity exclusive to administrators (usually actions associated with the conventional role of administrators in certain processes, even when they do not require the use of administrative tools).
 * 1) an action using an advanced permission

Administrative action review should not be used:
 * 1) 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 Deletion review (DRV)
 * For review of page moves, use Move review (MRV)
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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").
 * 3) for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
 * 4) for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
 * 5) for a block marked with any variation of CheckUser block, OversightBlock, or ArbComBlock; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
 * 6) 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 notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.
 * Use of the notification system is not sufficient.

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 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 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 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.