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.

Wrongful ban on false grounds by @Firefangledfeathers

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.

---

@Firefangledfeathers gave me a temp ban for alleged "personal attacks" without any evidence.
The admin later elaborated on the supposed grounds for the ban:

You repeatedly called the good-faith contributions of other editors "vandalism"

However, the supposed "good-faith contributions of other editors" were not good faith: they were bad faith. They were the bad-faith removal of encyclopedic content based on false reasons, as I subsequently detailed:

The first reason @Gråbergs Gråa Sång gave for removing the content was that I hadn't provided reliable sources for it:

Unless there are WP:RS that states "Hey, this thing in this piece of fiction is incorrect!" or "Hey, this bit is inconsistent!" it doesn't go anywhere on this website

But that reason was false because WP:RS only applies to contentious material, which he eventually conceded the material I had added wasn't.
The second reason @KJP1 gave was that no "expert" source had bothered to mention the facts that I had added to the article:

The point, for me, is not really whether the inconsistencies are “facts” or not, it is that no RS appear to have thought they warranted mentioning. As they haven’t, I really can’t see that the section is appropriate.

KJP1 has drawn his own conclusion from the absence of the facts having been mentioned in RS - which is therefore original research on KJP1's part. But you can't base article content on original research, so again another false reason.

So there has been no genuine reason for the removal of the encyclopedic content that I added, just false reasons. So the removal was based on falsehoods - ie malicious.

It was therefore vandalism, as I said.

In short, the contributions were not "good-faith" as you stated.

The justifications given by a very small number of editors for the removal of encyclopedic content from the article were false reasons, aka sophistry: "the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving" - Google.
And the axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:

the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

So @Firefangledfeathers wrongfully gave me a temp ban for calling into question bad-faith contributions - by his misrepresenting them as "good-faith". AlexAndrews (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse You've opened two discussions here in two days, both of which are frivolous. You continue to badly misunderstand what "vandalism" is (it does not mean edits you disagree with - it means edits made to intentionally harm Wikipedia in the mind of the person who makes them, and both Gråbergs Gråa Sång and KJP1 clearly think they're improving Wikipedia even if their definition of "improving" is different from yours.
  This is a content dispute misplaced at a conduct venue at best, and more likely you should be blocked again for repeating the very same behavior that led to the first block. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked AA indefinitely for continuing to label good-faith edits vandalism and for suggesting that they intend to continue edit warring. I'm sorry to all the editors that have been putting up with them; I had hoped that a temporary block would be sufficient. I welcome, of course, any review of my actions here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Endorse block AlexAndrews, when you complain that an administrator's block is wrongful and false, you are expected to provide convincing evidence. Accusing other editors of vandalism is a very grave matter that must be accompanied by highly convincing evidence that the editor in question has deliberately and consciously set out to damage the encyclopedia. You have failed to do so. Evidence free accusations like this are personal attacks which are simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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.