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 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.

January 2025 block of Andrewjlockley by CaptainEek

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: Special:Diff/1270286497

User: CaptainEek (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

Self reporting after the blocked user and Clayoquot contested the validity of the block, and I promised that if ArbCom didn't take up the issue, I'd send myself to AARV to get community input. In short: User:Andrewjlockley admitted that they emailed another editor's employer, saying I called this out by means of letter to the employer Special:Diff/1270277923. Contacting other user's employers has long been a redline, so I blocked. Andrew contested this, arguing that the user was a paid editor, and that it should be fine to contact the employers of paid editors. See Special:Diff/1270766664 for a more complete explanation on my part of the block, and my promise to send to AARV. I believe the statement at ANI, and the email contact, crossed a line, but I believe this is an edge case suitable for AARV. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Good block. It is not fine to contact the employers of paid editors or employers of any other editor. It is harassment. It is potentially actionable in court. If one has off-Wiki evidence of paid editing, it is to be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org . The only action we can take is to block undeclared paid editors unless and or until they comply with WP:PAID. Paid editing is not against the rules. Only undeclared paid editing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  What Voorts said, too. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Harassment is zero tolerance behavior and the block is appropriate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Clayoquot: Obviously, recognition that the problem behavior is a problem and a credible assurance that the problem behavior won't recur. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  In skimming Andrewjlockley's talk page, my impression is they are doing the opposite of recognizing the wrongness of harassing someone (via the someone's employer, no less). and assuring there will be no recurrence. I agree with Beeblebrox's unblock decline. He is spot on. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox: Hear, hear! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Good block. Contacting another editor's employer is unacceptable, notwithstanding whether they're a disclosed or undisclosed paid editor. It's also dangerous for an editor to do so; all it takes is one sleazy company to interpret a letter as defamatory. As S. Marshall noted at VPP: If it's needful to contact an organisation about one of their employees' edits, Trust and Safety should do that. Not volunteers. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  +1 to @Deepfriedokra. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Good block. Said well above, so won't restate their words. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Absolutely a good block. Compare the Jytdog case in 2018; contacting the actual user was what got Jytdog cast into outer darkness; contacting the user's employer is a step further. Bishonen | tålk 22:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC).
• Of course you were right to block. To address one point that has been made, I edit using my real name too, but it doesn't give me any more privileges than anyone else, and certainly no immunity from blocking. I know the risks involved and so should Andrewjlockley have done. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks for bringing this for review and for the ping. The text of the employer contact (or more accurately, client contact) is at User talk:Andrewjlockley. An email like this could be framed as contacting an employer; it could also be framed as expressing an opinion about Wikipedia content and speculating that a relevant organization might have been responsible for putting it there. You're saying that making this type of speculation on a mailing list is against our rules. OK, fine, but how are people supposed to know that this is one of our rules?
  Indefinitely blocking after a warning would be reasonable (personally I would disagree with it but I would see it as reasonable). But indefinitely blocking with no warning when somebody does something that a normal person some normal people would do is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia appear hostile and intolerant of criticism. So my 2 cents is unblock and issue a final warning Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Most of us learn that such action is wrong from our parents. There doesn't need to be an explicit Wikipedia rule about it. And I (and probably the vast majority of editors) am not "normal" according to you because I would not take such an action. I am not asking for any sanction for you, but please follow WP:BLP. It doesn't only apply to Andrewjlockley. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Refactored "a normal person" to "some normal people" to convey my originally-intended meaning without ambiguity. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• The block was the worst action possible, except for all the other options. It's regrettable (because Andrewjlockley's heart was in the right place) but essential (because harassment cannot be tolerated). I have posted at User talk:Andrewjlockley with a suggestion that they take a week off and then consider whether a collaborative community can permit participants to contact each other's employers with complaints. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• I'm not going to say "overturn block" because the block itself was reasonable - what Andrewjlockley did was wrong, but I don't see why it needed to be indefinite. This is someone who has been around for over a decade and made thousands of constructive edits - had they not been blocked this would at some point have blown over and they would have continued to do so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Question for supporters of an indef - What could Andrewjlockley say/do that would make you support unblocking? If the answer is "nothing", then let's call this what it is: a lifetime unappealable block. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please see what I wrote on their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  They don't need to agree with the community's long-held stance that any sort of uninvited off-wiki contact is harassment, but they would need to indicate that they understand that that is how it is usually interpreted and they won't do it again. If they could manage that I can't see any other obstacle to unblocking. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Good block per Deepfriedokra and Voorts, among others. @Pppery and Clayoquot: et al Indefinite does not mean infinite. If they make an appeal that convincingly demonstrates they understand what they did was wrong, and why it was wrong, then they will be allowed to return. A finite-length block may or may not result in any change in behaviour or understanding - too short and it would prevent nothing; too long and they would either appeal anyway (no benefit to either party over an indef), be separated from the project longer than needed for it to be preventative (both parties suffer) or they treat it as infinite and walk away with or without understanding why they were blocked (again, both parties suffer). Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• My position is quoted above: If it's needful to contact an organisation about one of their employees' edits, Trust and Safety should do that. Not volunteers. I stand by it, but I do feel that in all the circumstances described here, a no-notice indefinite block was too harsh. Mr Lockley is now aware of the community's view about this and should be unblocked without further humiliation.—S Marshall T/C 09:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I also very much regret that the word "harassing" appears in this user's block log. That's wrong, and it's yet another piece of evidence to show that the community needs a technical solution that lets us edit block log entries where there's consensus to do so.—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse Off-wiki harassment should have zero tolerance and violations should always lead to an indef. Nobody (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Good block but appeals should be considered. Voots has it exactly correct - any contact should have been done by Trust and Safety, not a volunteer. Indef makes sense, but I do think that an unblock would be in order if Andrewjlockley shows he understands why he was blocked and agrees to not do it again. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Good block The issue is of highest importance, and the act was problematic. If they indicate that they understand and look safe going forward, support an unblock. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - Pretty straight forward harassment and an instant indef was required. I agree an unblock would be in order if they acknowledge their mistake and make a commitment never to repeat it. Though looking at the unblock request and discussion that seems less and less likely to happen. PackMecEng (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Good block but one which should be an easy unblock (the user in question appears to have been genuinely ignorant so highly unlikely to re-offend). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

What should Andrew have done instead?

(FWIW, I have no real-life connection to Andrew and I have had no contact with him off-wiki).

I'm genuinely puzzled by some of the suggestions that have been made about how editors should respond should they find themselves in the situation Andrew was in. I thought I knew Wikipedia processes pretty well, but maybe I'm missing something so please enlighten me.

Based on a close reading of Andrew's talk page, the incident that he was blocked for consisted of sending a message to a solar geoengineering mailing list. His message was addressed to a specific individual whose work on an initiative called the "NUA" is public and well-known. The contents of the message were pasted at Andrew's talk page on Jan 20. The message centered on allegedly biased editing of the Solar radiation modification article. It stated, I have not checked the origin of these problematic edits, but whoever made them may conceivably have had some association with the NUA. Andrew later said that at the time of writing the message, he was not aware of what editor(s) had made the edits or even how many editors were involved. This is consistent with his statement that he had not checked the origin of the problematic edits.

Question 1

What should Andrew have done in this situation?

One suggestion above is that Andrew should have emailed paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. The instructions at WP:PAID say that this email address should be used to when you believe an editor is engaged in paid editing and there is private information. Contacting paid-en-wp would involve ignoring the rules given that Andrew did not possess private information. I'm curious why people believe this is an appropriate route.

Another suggestion above is to contact T&S in situations like this. I assume this refers to ca@wikimedia.org, which is for General Trust & Safety issues including "reports of abuse" (a redirect to Office Actions) and "compromised situation" (a redirect to Help:Compromised accounts). If I understand correctly, people are saying that if an editor thinks the Solar radiation modification article has been edited in a POV manner and that a particular group that has publicly aligned itself with the POV might be responsible, this is the email address to write to. Do the people at T&S want to get an email whenever a volunteer in a WMF wiki has this type of concern? Does T&S regularly get involved in sorting out allegations of POV editing by nonviolent law-abiding people?

A third option of course is to 1) look into the article history to determine which editor(s) made the questionable edits, and then 2) file a report at AN/I, COIN, or AE. Is this a good option or do people still think it's better to email one of the addresses above?

Question 2

What precautions are volunteers expected to take to make sure that we are not contacting another editor's employer?

Many of us are probably acquainted with someone whose organization that has hired a Wikipedia editor at some point. Say for instance that my good friend Jane is a middle manager at Acme Corporation and I have lunch with her every week. If I happen to have seen a noticeboard discussion about copyright violations in the Acme Corp article, am I allowed to mention to Jane that a noticeboard discussion about Acme Corp exists? Or am I supposed to get through all of our future lunches pretending to know nothing about it, on the off chance that Acme Corp could have hired a Wikipedia editor?

Respectfully, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI @Deepfriedokra and @S Marshall, in case you missed it, there are questions above on your recommendations to contact paid-en-wp &T&S. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that what Andrew should have done is open a discussion on WP:COIN.

I think that the community can normally handle conflict of interest editors just fine without contacting their employers or clients, but in the (extremely rare) cases where the community thinks someone's employer or client does need to be contacted, the community should refer that to T&S. Individual editors shouldn't.

On your second question, I'm confounded and confused by the notion that an editor might need to "take precautions" not to "accidentally" contact another editor's employer. It's not the kind of thing normal people do by accident.—S Marshall T/C 18:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You just don't contact someone's employer. It's harassment. Once again, if someone has off wiki evidence of paid editing, there's a contact e-mail I already posted, thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for making a factually true statement that has no relevance to the case being discussed. Comments like this are why the signal-to-noise ratio at AARV is better than at any other noticeboard. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@ S Marshall : Thank you for the clarification and for engaging.

Our harassment policy forbids inappropriate or unwanted communication when directed at another editor. Andrew sent a letter to an organization that he believed employed one or more editors. There is zero evidence that the letter was directed at particular editor and strong evidence that it wasn't. Then people argued that the "when directed at another editor" part is actually not essential and that sending a letter to another editor's employer is forbidden, full stop.

Contacting organizations in the particular fashion that Andrew did is not my style but if any kind of "contacting another editor's employer" will get me indeffed then I want to make sure I don't contact another editor's employer. I talk to many people in my life, sometimes about Wikipedia. How am I supposed to be sure none of these people are another editor's employer before I talk to them? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:44, 7 February 2025 (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.

I got blocked for no reason

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.

---

I'm edited http://id.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mushaf and add a relevant link there (mushaf.web.id, whose hosted archive of scanned mushaf pages, no commercial, just scanned files) but my revision got removed many times by this one person and then I got blocked.

Diffs/logs:

User: Rsalafy (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2025 (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.

February 2025 block of 79.13.24.38 by Johnuniq

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

February 2025 Talk page block of Richard Gill by UtherSRG. Also to review the declined unblock by Yamla

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)