Eurovision Wiki: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 your particular concerns are within the proper 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 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.

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.

Threats & deletions

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)

What part is disruptive exactly? Are you the admin to review? KongehusetN (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Repeated inclusion of the content, despite being reverted, and not providing a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2026 (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.

Editor acting in bad faith

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)

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 an 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)

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

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⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽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)

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)

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)

Sure, done. Feel free to just remove this section if you want. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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.

2 March 2026 block by The Blade of the Northern Lights

Diffs/logs: block log

User: The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽logs) (prior discussion)

The temporary account ~2026-13552-25 was blocked indefinitely by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights for WP:NOTHERE, very soon after it was reported at the AN/I thread linked in "prior discussion". Since that block 15 days ago, the AN/I thread has garnered considerable controversy over the block, which has continued to this present day. Hence, I am opening this AARV thread as the proper venue to formally discuss whether or not the block by The Blade of the Northern Lights was a good one. Note that I have nothing personal against the admin who placed the block of course, and the other reason why I wanted to open this thread is so other admins might have a better idea of what to do should they come across a situation like this temporary account in the future.
As for why the block itself seems like a bad one, it is down to the fact that the temp-acc only made two edits, the offending edit wasn't a bad-faith change (diff), and the edit summary simply only said "Milei is right", rather than blatantly being supportive of Nazis or the like. Note that this is not my own view, I am actually neutral on this matter, this view is from the comments that disapprove of the block on the AN/I thread. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Looks like an advocate for the politics of Javier Milei. Advocating any political position looks WP:NOTHERE to me. YMMV. (Link to ANI discussion.) I don't agree with those defending this user. Homophobia has no place in this encyclopedia. No form of hate speech does. (WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE)-- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• It was a WP:NOTHERE block. WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE's Wikipedia is not a place to...carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. are policy, sufficient reason for a block. I don't think the WP:NONAZIS and WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE essays need be part of this review. Should not derail the discussion with opinions on those essays. fiveby(zero) 13:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Well taken. Agree with policy based rationale. -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Good block, no doubt about it. I agree with the thesis of WP:HID that expressing hateful views is disruptive editing by default. Athanelar (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Good block. I'd support this 1000 times over. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this block, because I believe in giving people rather more warning than this before showing them the door. But I don't think Blade's assessment of the situation was likely to be wrong. If the TA appealed I'd probably give them a WP:LASTCHANCE and tell them they're on thin ice. -- asilvering (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• A bit of a strong reaction, perhaps.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• I would not have made the same block in this situation – I probably would've warned, as asilvering suggests – but that does not mean I support overturning the block. I am unconvinced of the rather confident declaration several have made that this editor is "not here to build an encyclopedia", as both of their edits were constructive. But they certainly knew what they were doing with the disruptive edit summary, so splitting hairs over the rationale is pointless. This editor is of course welcome to request an unblock at any time, and if they commit to not make inflammatory political statements irrelevant to their editing I am confident that request would be granted. Toadspike [Talk] 21:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• I am in favour of rescinding the block, albeit not without mixed feelings. I share the perspective of most respondents to the involved discussions that the user in question is more likely than not to prove to be WP:NOTHERE, and thus I am sympathetic to arguments that the block should be upheld for basically WP:BURO reasons. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the implications for project function, culture and longterm viability if we begin to block users simply for saying something that implies they hold views which the average Wikipedia would view as amoral--which is, without exaggeration, what happened here. Not even the slightest effort at communication was undertaken by the reporting party or the blocking admin to test the supposition that this user was per se incompatible with project behavioural guidelines, and the block came immediately, without the community being given an opportunity to assess and support a determination that their presumed views are definitionally WP:disruptive or whether a sanction short of an indef (for example, a GENSEX TBAN) might have prevented disruption, as required under WP:PREVENTATIVE.
  That is far too laissez-faire and problematic a process for validating blocks, especially indefs, based entirely on the perceived values of an editor. I too find the user's apparent beliefs noxious (and would like to believe I would do even if I weren't a target of the specific form of bigotry in question here). And I don't suspect we will miss this user's contributions, if they remain blocked. But there are broader considerations at play here, and I am very concerned about the longterm implications if we begin to allow admins to unilaterally indef users for nothing more than revealing moral, social, and political views which run against the grain of the average Wikipedian's--which is not a grounds for blocking which is recognized under any policy or community consensus. In fact, that premise is only supported by WP:NONAZIS, the only principle cited by the the ANI reporter, and one the community as a whole has repeatedly and expressly refused to adopt into policy, for exactly the reasons and concerns implicated by this block.
  Without a shred of doubt, I believe Blade of the Northern Lights acted in good faith to protect the project against someone who probably would prove to be incompatible with the project eventually. At the same time, I do not think they, or any admin, should have the discretion to block (let alone indef) based on speculation that another user's views on a controversial topic make them de facto incapable of being WP:HERE, unless and until unambiguous WP:Disruption has already taken place, or another policy has been clearly violated. In my view, that crosses the line between protecting project interests and into sphere of curating community membership and ideologically gating project participation. This is an edge case with an unsympathetic subject, but the principles involved are important, and the resulting precedent could be very damaging to project culture and stability. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Kind of a team effort in getting to where we are right now tho isn't it? CoryGlee should have read the notice atop ANI and warned the editor themselves probably. Concerns about this particular block should have gone to TBotNL's talk page first maybe? Larger issues such as "implications for project function, culture and longterm viability" are very unlikely to get resolved at ANI, or here. fiveby(zero) 02:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, which it seems like this was. Parabolist (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Just a note that I'm aware of this, I won't stand in the way of anyone else who takes action as a result of this discussion, if there's consensus I should take some action I'll go ahead and do it, and whatever the outcome of this discussion is I'll take that into account going forward. If there's anything I can clarify I will, and I'll otherwise observe the development of this review. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Hello, given that I was the ANI reporter, and that I was myself at ANI days later due to stress-induced stupidity, I will limit myself (as I promised to those involved with my stressed behaviour) to saying that, when I filed the ANI report about that TA, I was not asking for an indefinite block nor pursuing an indefinite block because I completely lack of administrators' rationales to apply sanctions. If I have to recognize something, I concede that I should've warned the user; if I did not, it was in part because it was a TA (no prejudice) and whose two only contributions were controversial, most especially the one in the article about the Zulocks. --CoryGlee 04:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm not going to push for overturning the block, but I'm otherwise in agreement with Snow Rise. I'll also add that the preferable option is probably to enforce WP:SOAPBOX by telling people that commentary or advocacy unrelated to Wikipedia should be conducted somewhere other than Wikipedia, regardless of how agreeable or disagreeable it is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strongly agreed with SnowRise, including the mixed feelings, but I'd also like to emphasize that this is a case where TBotNL made a decision within what I would consider admin discretion. I would prefer that we warn first in cases like this, but it was a basically reasonable action and not something that should be counted as a mark against TBotNL's judgment. Rusalkii (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Good block - the blocked user's edit summary was extremely uncivil toward LGBTQ Wikipedians, and there's zero reason editors should waste time and effort wringing our hands about process about something this blatant. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)