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

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.

---

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)

Well... no, but that's a leading question, isn't it? Why not just start an RM discussion where the page is now? That will sort this out. -- asilvering (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Maliner's move away from the stable title over objections was pretty clearly mistaken, and while I understand the "just start an RM" line of thinking, I also understand the frustration and am uncomfortable with just allowing a fait-accompli move to stand. Ultimately our only job here is to figure out whether this was an appropriate use of page mover (MRV wouldn't be the right place for that), and I don't think it was, so overturn. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Overturn: Since Rosguills move was reverted, it clearly was no longer uncontrovertial, so Maliners move should not have happened without a discussion. Nobody (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• The correct title would be Tamara (name), and I hope we can get to that outcome with the minimum possible bureaucracy.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's nearly that straightforward: if Category:Feminine given names is any indication, there's a fairly strong WP:CONSISTENT argument for the longer title, if nothing else. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

    Additionally, WP:APOAT (it's a good page) explains that the difference isn't even stylistic but denotes the scope of the anthro page, with "name" (as opposed to "surname" and "given name"), being reserved for "the article covers both, or is ambiguous" case, which is an exception. The page starts with "Tamara is a feminine given name ...", there's a list of people whose given name is Tamara, and ends with the template {{Given name}}. —Alalch E. 03:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    As an example, Abigail (name): "Abigail is a feminine given name. ... It is also a surname." Three people with the surname Abigail are listed. That's why the title has "name" as opposed to "given name". Without Francis, Peter, and Robert Abigail, the tile would have been "Abigail (given name)". —Alalch E. 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn: I understand the “this isn’t that big a deal, just do an RM” feeling, but this board is just to determine whether to maintain or overturn an action using advanced tools. I think it will be quicker and more painless to just get to that. OP presents a pretty obvious case. Just overturn because Maliner’s move was out of process. If anyone on either side of the dispute want action taken against someone, that’s for somewhere else. —Floquenbeam (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Floq. Seems like an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Floq, others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Everyone agrees that the eventual outcome should be decided by consensus from a discussion. It doesn't matter what title this is under while it is being discussed. This discussion can only serve to prolong that process. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom. Incorrect action. Mover should not have accepted The Blue Rider's request.—Alalch E. 02:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any action from here. This is out of scope. This forum must not be allowed to subsume other forums. The solution is to use WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  A mover volunteering at WP:RM/TR needs to know when to refuse requests, and needs to know how to reverse course when they've made a mistake in accepting a request they shouldn't have. —Alalch E. 03:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Did you possibly mean WP:MRV, not RM? -- asilvering (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  No. A simple reading might see someone send it to MRV, but what is MRV going to do? There’s disagreement, so start an RM. Appeals should start at the bottom, not the top. 1. Ask the mover, maybe they’ll revert. 2. Start the RM that is in hindsight needed. 3. If the RM is done or closed wrong, go to MRV. If an admin blocks you for asking tricky questions, maybe that is a path to XRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Out of scope XRV is for things where another review board is not available. Administrative actions to (un)delete and (un)protect protect things are reviewed at DRV all the time, so a move done with administrative tools should accordingly be reviewed at WP:MRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:MRV is explicitly for a contested close. A speedy action like RM/TR has no close. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  So fix the language. Where would this have gone before XRV was created? MRV. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  AN. Page mover using privilege incorrectly, not recognizing and not reversing a mistake, and needs correction to ensure that they use it correctly. —Alalch E. 13:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Get the page-mover people to sort it out. If they choose to overturn, the person who did something incorrect will get the message. This page is for later, if messages are not received and there is a pattern of problems. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Without weighing in on this specific scenario, this venue isn't for patterns of problems. It's for a review of an administrator's decision, without assigning blame. Patterns of problems continue to be handled in the same venues as before. isaacl (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would totally agree if we were discussing one block or one page deletion. However, this is a techo thing that really doesn't matter except to the people who specialize in titles. It should be discussed at the usual place like all the other inappropriate/contested moves. Is this page going to be used for all future contested moves where an advanced permission has been used? Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is not just a techo thing. Whether the word "given" should be in the title is that. But this XRV is not about whether the word given should be in the title, it's the fundamental concept of knowing when it is appropriate to use advanced permissions. The specific means by which that knowledge (or lack thereof) is expressed is irrelevant.

  And overturn. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know enough about the various move processes to have formed an opinion on where this particular case should be discussed. All I'm saying is that this venue shouldn't be used to discuss patterns of problems, as it wasn't designed to handle that type of discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do not endorse. This is at the very least the correct venue to challenge a use of advanced permissions, and this advanced permission was used inappropriately. I hope Maliner absorbs that feedback. I'm neutral on whether to overturn, since it seems like an RM is likely going to start soon regardless. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 21 October 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.