Wikipedia:Administrative action review

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
2. 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 Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV)

   For review of page moves, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)

2. 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.

3. 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.
4. 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").
5. for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
6. for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Wikipedia:Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
7. for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
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 notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.

   Use of the notification system is 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 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.

Page Mover, out-of-process technical move

Action: Tamara (given name) → Tamara (name) round-robin (Special:Diff/1250968295)

User: Maliner (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

In 2011, administrator JaGa moved "Tamara (name)" → "Tamara (given name)". With 13 years and 330+ edits since, "Tamara (given name)" is cemented as the most recent stable title, per WP:RMUM / WP:TITLECHANGES. This week on 11 October, Rosguill did a bold move "Tamara (given name)" → "Tamara (name)" (as a proxy action for The Blue Rider, who attempted the move by cut-paste); I promptly reverted to "Tamara (given name)". At this point, the process of renaming requires an RM discussion; WP:RMUM: if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again.

Instead, The Blue Rider took the request to WP:RM/TR, where Maliner moved it again to "Tamara (name)"; their justification is that Rosguill did the "revert" step (of JaGa's 2011 move). Of course, it is not a revert when "Tamara (given name)" is the long-term stable title. WP:RMUM: If the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move; "Tamara (given name)" has been in place for a long time: Rosguill's move is not a revert, but a new bold move.

Procedurally, the article should be restored to the most recent stable title "Tamara (given name)". From which point, an RM can determine the consensus for a title change. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Why have you not attempted to discuss this with Maliner before bringing it here? Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a prior discussion link. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please relax. There is no need to make a mountain of this. In your prior discussion link, Maliner makes it clear why they moved the page. Maybe they were right, or maybe they overlooked something and are wrong. Don't take it personally. Did the objection noted in their response occur? If so, just take the suggestion and have a full discussion. There is no misuse of admin tools here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I am here to utilize the forum #Purpose: review if the action was inconsistent with policy. Simply that. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:XRVPURPOSE#1 subpoint 2, this should not come to XRV because WP:MRV is available. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

MRV doesn't mention speedy moves at RM/TR are accepted, and only XfDs and RMs that have formal closing processes. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The question at the heart:

• Is it consistent with policy for a Page Mover to unilaterally move a page away from its stable title, when the move is objected to in good faith? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)