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

Instructions
Initiating a review

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.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Johnuniq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

79.13.24.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe that the block of the IP editor User:79.13.24.38 of three months represent a failure to assume good faith on the admin User:Johnuniq's part. The reason for the block was supposedly "advertising or self-promoting", with Johnuniq pointing to the numerous book references the IP editor has added. While it could be argued that the additional citations were not helpful or excessive, there is no consistency in terms of author, publisher or subject area, making self-promotion implausible. When I inquired about the reversions (User_talk:Johnuniq#Refspam?), Johnuniq replied It would need quite a lot of effort to work out what is being promoted—it might be an author, a publisher, an idea, or something else. I don't think we should be making blocks if we do not even know what the editor is supposedly promoting. In addition, the IP editor has only received one reminder by User:Ianmacm before the block.

The IP editor has also constructively contributed to improving the formatting of pre-existing citations, which Johnuniq reverted ([1], for example) alongside the IP editor's entire contributions. I do not find the IP editor's explanation that I am just a librarian who thinks all Wikipedia articles need bibliographies of excellent quality implausible.[2]

Overall, I believe this case represents a severe WP:BITE case and the actions should be overturned. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support unblocking 79.13.24.38, but do not support restoring the links that were reverted. There needs to be a clearer understanding of what external links are for, per WP:CIR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references the editor added I'd argue are constructive. They added prominent books about Science of reading in the further readings section which were not used in the article, helping readers and other editors to find sources to expand the article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks should ideally be appealed by the blocked editor on their user talk page, but we're here now so we might as well discuss it here. I see that Johnuniq has said that he is away for a while and is happy for the editor to be unblocked, which is what should happen. As regards reverting this user's edits, that seems to be a non-admin action under WP:BRD, so, if there are some which should be reinstated, they can be discussed on article talk pages as usual. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that there is a connection with User talk:FutureBuilder14, who is now on a spree of reverting User:Johnuniq's edits, without any kind of explanation. It'd be nice if a CU could have a look. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser can't connect an IP to an account for privacy reasons. That said, I have blocked FutureBuilder14 for their mass reverting spree. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are here, someone might like to close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Further reading links where I raised the issue. As stated, I'm happy for the IP to be unblocked but would be reluctant to do so myself before there is consensus regarding whether they should continue adding further reading links. Re the block, it may be that dealing with spam in the past has reduced my assumptions of good faith. While weighing up what to do, the fact that the IP had not responded to a very reasonable comment made me think that failing to block would just pass the problem to be dealt with by someone else after many more links had been added. Johnuniq (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There may be WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issues as well. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anything has changed but I seem to recall that potential THEYCANTHEARYOU edits were tagged. This IP's edits do not have the tags that I remember. Also, they responded within four hours after being blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not endorsed. I get that we're all strapped for time but purely as a matter of logical consistency you can't call something promotional if you can't say what it's promoting and blocking someone on this basis sends the message that Wikipedia administration is arbitrary. – Joe (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Partially endorse Given that they didn't react to the warning, a preventative block clearly managed to get them to stop their disruptive edits. The block length and reason could've been different, but the block itself helped. Nobody (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not endorsed. I've spotchecked several of the edits and they seem... fine. Not just "not block-worthy", but fine. Also, what Joe said. -- asilvering (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's not agonize about this. Everyone agrees that the IP is to be unblocked. What advice should be given regarding focusing on adding further reading external links? Where should that be discussed (I started at WP:AN for that reason, before this was opened). Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not believe any warning other than a pointer to WP:LEADCITE is necessary (in addition to Ianmacm's). I find most of the IP's book addition to be improvements, leading readers to reliable sources published by reputable universities and complementing the pre-existing references. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So to be clear, we’re ignoring the socking as FutureBuilder14, and the pretending to be a librarian. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs/logs: Talk page block [3]. Declined unblock [4].

User: UtherSRG (talk · contribs · logs) (At Richard Gill's page [5], on UtherSRG's talk page [6] and following.|prior discussion)

I do not believe there is any egregious violation of talk page access in a perfectly reasonable request to be unblocked by a user who waited a full year before applying for the standard offer. Waiting for the standard offer was specifically suggested to him by HandThatFeeds and it was Richard Gill's own decision to give it a full year, rather than just 6 months after UtherSRG pointed out that the timer began after the last talk page comment. [7] Despite doing everything we asked, acknowledging his error, and stating clearly he will not edit on the subject at all for which he was previously involved in advocacy, the standard offer was declined. Yamla states in the decline that he did not acknowledge everything he did wrong. We seem to have a very finicky process about unblocks, but I am sure that could have been resolved with a little more discussion. But instead, the user has had his talk page summarily revoked.

I am requesting that the talk page block be rescinded, allowing Gill to address any outstanding issues in allowing the standard offer, or else that we just go ahead and extend the standard offer to Gill, with or without editing restrictions.

Now it seems to me that Richard Gill is a subject expert who has a lot to offer Wikipedia, editing under his own real name, and entirely in good faith. Which is certainly not true of the frequently blocked sock puppet who targeted him, made personal attacks on him, maliciously edited his Wikipedia page, and who made the reports to El_C that directly led to his indefinite block. Not a criticism on the block itself, which was for reason. But given that the user has returned, having carefully complied with all we asked, and voluntarily waited twice as long as we suggested, I believe now is the time to welcome him back - and if that threshold is not met for any reason, it is certainly not a time to compound the number of hoops we make him jump through. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For more context, this is a comment I made previously in support of unblocking this user, which recounts the vicious attacks made on Gill that led to his actions. I note that since this time, I too have had my edits trolled by this sock puppet, who created accounts designed to identify me and disparage me. The sockpuppet is not a pleasant person. Gill, on the other hand, seems to be civil and in good faith. Anyway, here is what I wrote:

I have had no prior interaction with Richard Gill on or off wiki before my attention was drawn to a COI banner placed on the page. I took a look, and was immediately concerned by what I saw. One user, Structuralists, was summarily excising all of the content and replacing it with content I believed (and a consensus later established) was not neutral. I also found that another user who was editing there had shown clear "bad blood" in an egregious personal attack on Gill's personal page. The non neutral editing continued on this and another page, and I took this to ANI [8] and MeltingDistrict was topic banned from all pages associated with Richard Gill owing to a clear failure of neutrality. Yngvadottir had already said in an earlier ANI thread that Gill was over a barrel. MeltingDistrict escaped further sanction because they appeared to be a new user, but as they continued their attacks on everything to do with Richard Gill, they were given the topic ban under AE restrictions. Nevertheless, Structuarlists and SnuggleWasp continued in this vein right up to yesterday, when Structuralists attempted an RfC designed to introduce non neutral material into Gill's page. [9]. By this time it was clear these editors were sockpuppets of BarehamOliver. My evidence is here.[10] I had filed the SPI at the weekend and the investigation concluded last night. It is thus clear that Richard Gill was under concerted attack by a false consensus caused by socking. He was topic banned from editing his own page, a restriction that may remain - but I note that the COI guidance does not say that editing your own page is always wrong, it is strongly advised against. He was given that topic ban when his edits were defending what clearly were highly POV attacks. It is much better, of course, not to edit your own page, and the topic ban is a fair solution, but that mitigation should be considered. So, on that score, his desire to request editor assistance when he could not edit his own page and when he was under attack from three sockpuppets is entirely understandable. I note, also, that it was the sockpuupet Structuralists who contacted El_C to point out the off-wiki canvassing. El_C acted entirely reasonably and in good faith in enacting the above block, because blocks are preventitive but not punitive. However, in light of the clear manipulation of the situation by sockpuppetry, I would request that this block be reviewed in the light of that evidence.

I note that off-wiki canvassing is problematic, for good reason. I submit, however, that despite having over 7,000 edits, this editor had not edited much out of mainspace, and was probably unaware of on-wiki means of requesting editor assistance. Richard Gill is a respected statistician, editing under his own name. He edits on a range of pages on statistical subjects and subjects were statistical reasoning is deployed. These contributions are very valuable to the project. Because he has a professional reputation, and has been open about his identity, I believe that should he apologise for the off-wiki request and assure us that in future he will seek assistance using approved on-wiki methods, we would be able to take that promise at face value. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse decline If they write sorry for the actions by me which caused it., then they should explain which actions specifically in order to show they understand their mistakes. For example: They've been told that Wikipedia is not the place to pursue truth and justice after they wrote I'm afraid that the pursuit of truth and justice for me trumps the pleasure of working on Wikipedia, this hasn't been adressed by them in their latest unblock request. A conditional unblock request would've probably been better.
As for the TPA removal: After 5 unblock requests that show little improvement I can understand why UtherSRG decided to remove TPA, but I'm not sure it was the right decision. Nobody (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a place that claims it is not a bureaucracy, we sure are bureaucratic about what hoops we expect someone to jump through in writing an unblock request. Why can't we just have a conversation with the user, helping them to understand what is expected and helping them back into the community? People that take advice and write to our required standard get to keep the standard offer, but someone lacking the experience or appropriate friends to guide them to it are to be excised from the community forever? There is a person here who wants to contribute and who does not wish to be disruptive. It is time to show a little compassion and understanding. Please! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Blocked editors should not have to "work the system" or "play the game" to get unblocked. WP:ROPE should be the credo of any admin who handles unblocked requests. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure why we wouldn't unblock him after his response to Yamla (Yamla's decline seems fine, though I would have asked the question rather than declining the unblock). I certainly don't see any reason to revoke TPA. This is already at UTRS appeal #100323. If I'd seen that before I saw this post I think I'd have just restored TPA without really thinking twice about it. -- asilvering (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While revoking TPA might have been a bit much, why did you jump straight here instead of asking Uther to reconsider first? It's generally a bad idea to just bypass the admin and jump right to a board.

That said, I have to agree that the unblock request wasn't great. Gill is still focused on advocacy, but at least has the sense to say he'll stay away from Lucy Ledby. Less clear was if he'd stay away from his own article.

I'd say we should remove the TPA block and allow him to try and craft a better appeal, but I still don't know that he actually will avoid the same problems again based on the unblock appeal he already made. If he does get unblocked, he likely needs p-blocked from the articles about himself and Lucy Ledby. That would let him make suggestions on the Talk pages, but not directly edit & get into trouble that way. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why did you jump straight here instead of asking Uther to reconsider first? I did, and I linked the diff. Here it is again. [11] Also [12]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff link didn't work at the time, no idea why; the second was a ping which isn't sufficient. Now that you reposted the first diff here, it's working, so I withdraw that objection. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I declined the unblock request. The block was for "Disruptive editing: and conflict of interest violations; converting to sitewide due to problems still persisting, now also including violations to WP:CANVASS". The unblock request addressed only the canvassing. I consider this a reasonable decline. It allowed for a subsequent unblock request that addressed the other reasons for the block (disruptive editing and conflict of interest violations). I certainly wouldn't oppose an unblock request that addressed the reasons for the block. The unblock request does not "[state] clearly he will not edit on the subject at all for which he was previously involved in advocacy", though it's certainly possible one of the other 22,000 words or so on the talk page outside of the unblock request does this. I couldn't find it (which doesn't mean it isn't there). --Yamla (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Yamla. You declined, and Gill then replied, stating (his point 2): I fully understand that right now I would have a conflict of interest if I tried to edit the article about her [Letby's] case or on closely related topics. I certainly promise not to do that, indefinitely.[13] Does that address your concern? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems to contradict your claim above. You said, "Despite doing everything we asked, acknowledging his error, and stating clearly he will not edit on the subject at all for which he was previously involved in advocacy, the standard offer was declined. Yamla states in the decline that he did not acknowledge everything he did wrong." You seem to now be claiming the opposite with respect to my unblock decline. Note I am agreeing with you on what happened after the decline. In case you can't read my tone, I'm just seeking to clarify what happened, I'm not trying to be snippy with you at all. I'm generally in agreement on reducing hoops for people to jump through with regard to unblocking, it's just really complex. --Yamla (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So the administrative action that is particularly under review is the unjustified removal of talk page access that effectively ended any attempt to have the conversation that would have assured you that the block could be lifted. I said: I am requesting that the talk page block be rescinded, allowing Gill to address any outstanding issues in allowing the standard offer, or else that we just go ahead and extend the standard offer to Gill, with or without editing restrictions. There was no criticism, intended of your refusal to immediately lift the block. The reason for bringing this here was to review the administrative action of imposing a talk page block which does not appear justified and effectively ended communication on the matter. I also asked that we might consider lifting the ban based on the answers already given. My phrasing on the order of events could have been clearer, for which I apologise. Nevertheless, would you agree that his answer to you did, in fact, resolve your concern regarding the Letby pages? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For what my opinion is worth (I was pinged above), I think the removal of talk page access was unjustified. Gill's last edits (follow-up on his unblock request, followed by a formatting fix) pledge not to edit Lucy Letby and ask for clarification of what more is required, following the unblock decline, and the declined unblock clearly pledges never to canvass on social media again. The tone is respectful; all I can see to fault is the dig about WP having previously been friendly. Sirfurboy has laid out that the on-wiki campaign against Gill was even more extensive than was thought back when he was blocked. If there are outstanding issues he has not addressed in his unblock request and the follow-up—such as whether he needs to promise not to edit Richard D. Gill directly—the next step would appear to be to clarify that, and I don't understand why that could not happen on his talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I would unblock Gill now, I completely understand why Yamla did not at that point. However, the TPA removal was an extremely poor decision, how on earth are you expecting the editor to discuss their block with you now? TPA removal is for massively disruptive use of talk pages, of which this was not an example. It should be reversed. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock now. i also strongly agree removal of TPA was a bad mistake. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now unblocked. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Response I viewed the first part of Gill's reply to being declined I have earlier explained why the complaint that I had created the Wikipedia article about myself was unfair. Someone else did. They called it “Richard Gill (physicist)”. I changed it to “Richard Gill (statistician)”. I am not a physicist. Later I added my second initial “D.” And helped create a “Richard D. Gill disambiguation” page to distinguish the article about me the mathematical statistician from the articles about my namesakes the economist, the conductor, … Nobody protested. At the time Wikipedia was quite a friendly place and people were constructive. as refusing to see the COI in updating the article about himself. I saw this as thumbing his nose at us. I acted to cut off any escalation of harshness. As for Sirfurboy's assertion that this effectively ended any attempt to have the conversation, that's not quite so. UTRS is a system where some admins have been able to work more effectively at addressing behavioral adjustments, while minimizing the impact on in-Wiki life. Obviously, there are a number of folks who think I was too harsh, or at least too quick, to push the change of venue. I ask, though, if any of you have seen the harshness get out of hand and wished things weren't always handled so publicly? That said, I see that none here saw Gill's response as an intention to continue to edit the article about themself, so perhaps the harshness I saw was the filter of having dealt with too many reticent unblock requests. If so, I apologize. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Good unblock, Doug. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• TPA removal should be for defiance, not for people who don't quite get it, even assuming for the sake of discussion that self-abasement is productive. Personally I believe that, "I understand why I got blocked, understand that if I do it again I will be blocked again, and agree not to do it." should be the only assurances required. We aren't the thought police, and nothing is gained by trying to elicit statements of remorse or belief that the behavior resulting in the block under appeal was wrong. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not endorse TPA revocation. Not reasonably proportionate and preventative.—Alalch E. 23:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]