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

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

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]

• Do not endorse Seems fine overall. There's no rule saying who can claim to be a librarian...the socking is meh, and no CheckUser would likely connect the IP to the account publicly regardless. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The socking is meh? They evaded a block to revert a ton of edits by the blocking admin. This place is weird. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And we don't need a Checkuser, we just need to not be gullible. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not endorsed, per the EggRoll. When you're wearing glasses, no one knows you're not a librarian... and the consensus seems to be that the edits were, generally, not particularly egregious. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Partially endorse. After 170 edits to add dubious "further reading" links, and the IP's failure to respond to another editor's complaint about WP:REFSPAM, I think it was appropriate for Johnuniq to take action. The length of the block could have been shorter. The IP's response shows a very poor grasp of grammar, which is, itself, a little alarming, and now Floquenbeam points out sock edits to undo all the deletions, where we can see a pretty disgusting response. In any case, the IP should learn that important refs should be used as refs in the article itself, rather than in lengthy lists of unused refs at the bottom of articles, especially if the source is not a book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The IP geolocates to Italy, which could explain why a librarian might not have perfect English grammar. And the block itself was bitey, and JU's explanation that However, look at it from the point of view of the editors who maintain articles. Naturally many attempts are made each day to use Wikipedia to promote anything and everything. People who focus on adding external links are regarded with suspicion: are they interested in developing articles, or are they using articles to promote something? There is no effective way to decide that, and the large volume of misguided edits mean that individual cases have to be handled quickly with occasional errors is tone deaf: we're talking to a month-old account with fewer than 200 edits and asking them to understand Wikipedia, explaining the block could be an overhasty error, not rethinking the block, and instead taking a minor case of less-than-ideal editing to a noticeboard. That's bitey enough that I could even consider forgiving the stalking and childish nastiness as a loss of temper, maybe even the socking as ignorance -- this person has been doing well-intentioned-though-less-than-ideal editing using an IP in a browser when they're on their laptop and logged in on the mobile app when they're on their phone, and so far no one has noticed, told them they look like a sock if they edit the same article with both accounts, and advised them to log in on both devices.

I came here thinking I'd close this, but after reading the discussion didn't feel comfortable closing when the only possible consensus close was 'block not endorsed', which didn't seem to give enough weight to the socking, stalking, and childish remark. So I decided to go ahead and not endorse the original block but argue leave both accounts blocked until discussion at one or the other user talks convinces us this user is HERE, in hopes others might chime in and/or another closer might see that I am trying to give due weight to the bad behavior we saw after the block. Valereee (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially endorse I'll AGF for Johnuniq on the circumstances for the block. Note that the comment left on the IPs talk beforehand re: The Shining is not readily obvious to someone not familiar with MOS:FICTIONPLOT (i.e. fiction not needing secondary sourcing). A first-time block of 3 months for this, esp. an IP addr that is likely to be recycled, seems excessive (I personally do 1 week max on IPs for first timers). THEYCANTHEARYOU blocks, if that was the intent, should have resulted in an immediate unblock once we had their attention.—Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment / Update: there have been complaints that the 79.13.24.38 IP editor is evading their block, using the 87.17.158.221 IP address. I even gave out a warning letting them know about the policy on evasion of blocks, yet they still continue to make their external link adding edits to this day, such as this. So, even if their edits weren't ill-minded and actually intended to be constructive, this ongoing block evasion proves that they are unwilling to read and abide by Wikipedia's policies/guidelines. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]