Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Shortcuts

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 your particular concerns are within the proper scope. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

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 move discussion closures, 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 consistent with the guidelines for that permission.
    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 (or use {{subst:XRV}} directly)
  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.

Threats & deletions

Paper9oll is not an administrator. This does not belong here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Rollback edits & Threats to block. February 2026. 17:06 & 17:24 Paper9oll No discussion due to editor's threats and name-calling.

Racism is termed as unconstructive by editor & deleted due to bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KongehusetN (talk • contribs)

Your edits are disruptive and Paper9 is correct in warning you. Do not accuse others of bias without evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What part is disruptive exactly? Are you the admin to review? KongehusetN (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated inclusion of the content, despite being reverted, and not providing a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor acting in bad faith

Wrong venue. Dreamyshade is not an administrator and no administrative type tools were used. Whpq (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A wikipedia editor deletes all the citations in a page, and then nominates the same page for deletion and tries to fox others thinking that the page never had citations. please see this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Banking_%26_Finance_Review

Why would an Editor delete all the citations and then nominate the page for deletion?

Then the same editor goes on to accuse that the page has only sponsored posts and without any proof. When asked what is the proof that these are sponsored posts? the editor points to the site's submit arcticle page tag saying the site accepts articles. If all sites which have submit posts tab or write for us tab are considered sponsored, it is not factually correct.

I would formally like to raise a complaint against the Wikipedia Editor @dreamyshade whoherself accepts that she deleted the citations before nominating the page for deletion because she beleives the links were press releases and sponored. If this truly was the case, she should have only nominated the page for deleteion and not try to manipulate others to think there were no citations.

Links to the page in discussion and pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Banking_%26_Finance_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Banking_%26_Finance_Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Banking_%26_Finance_Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-11148-60 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamyshade is not an administrator, and even if they were those aren't admin actions, so this isn't the correct forum, but the process you describe isn't unusual: An editor goes through and article and deletes unreliable/affiliated/bare mention sources to find out if there's enough left to support a claim to notability, discovers there isn't, and opens an AfD. If all the citations were to press releases or sponsored content, Wikipedia considers that the same as having no citations. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 2020 block by JzG

All clear. asilvering (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diffs/logs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AFredrickBrennan&type=block
User: JzG (talk · contribs · logs) (Blocking user is no longer an administrator and cannot reverse the block)

User:FredrickBrennan Blocked for allegedly impersonating Fredrick Brennan in May 2020, however, @Nyttend: previously unblocked this user after confirming their identity (see [1]; they were first blocked in December 2014 for their username, and were unblocked a day later). Also, the block comes 5 years after their last edit (that I can see anyway). Note that their previous account User:8chan.co was also blocked for username violations (more justifiably), so they came back on this account. The blocking message notes that they were free to create a new account under a new username, which they did. IMO, assuming good faith of a new editor is needed, this user was likely unaware their first username was a violation and has not hidden their new account. Also worth noting that unfortunately the user has died. jolielover♥talk 07:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#User:FredrickBrennan: it was a self-requested block out of concern the account could be compromised. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm really sorry. Is it possible to amend the block description linking to this to avoid future confusion? Thanks for clearing this up. jolielover♥talk 07:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. Feel free to just remove this section if you want. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See deceased Wikipedians talk. If the editor were known to be deceased, they would be indefinitely blocked as standard procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AARV