User talk:86.187.167.188

The Hand That Feeds You
I appreciate that this is very random and unorthodox but I really think someone's attention needs to be drawn to this, and as I can see you've been involved in the context I think you would be an appropriate person for this. Over at Lucy Letby, you seem to be familiar with the user Sirfurboy who has been essentially editing on behalf of Richard Gill. I saw you commented on Richard Gill's user page when he kept making repetitive and unsuccessful unblocked requests, and you rightly advised him to stay away and (eventually) he begrudgingly accepted that he would. Yet only days later, a user suddenly appeared at Talk:Lucy Letby and demanded that the section about the said Richard Gill be changed to be more positive of him: Talk:Lucy Letby. This itself is somewhat suspicious, since Gill has himself previously been asking for his social media followers to make edits for him on Wikipedia since he is blocked, and then suspiciously editors come and demand those exact edits be made:,. And surprise surprise, in that previous case Sirfurboy came along and (as always) immediately agreed to listen to the pseudo-Gill account and starts an Rfc asking for wording on the lines of what Gill wanted: Talk:Lucy Letby. And now again this time, Sirfurboy has inserted the pro-Gill content into the 'Doubt about conviction' section:.

But here's the problem: there had previously been a talk page discussion Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 2 where a clear consensus had been reached for the wording of that section after intervention by the uninvolved editor DeCausa, with Sirfurboy himself agreeing that it should say: A small number of her friends and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. After the verdict conspiracy-theories soon began circulating on the internet doubting the outcome. The Letby case has joined a trend where amateur "internet sleuths" purport to have uncovered evidence suggesting that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. Amongst this, statistician Richard D. Gill and lawyer Neil Mackenzie KC, who co-authored a work with others on the use of statistics in court cases have also cast doubt on the outcome. I think this is something you might recall, and you might want to know that your consensus wording has been unilaterally overridden? That wording was implemented and stayed until now suddenly Sirfurboy seems to have forgotten this previous consensus and disregard it. This is in apparent breach of WP:CONLEVEL: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Although consensus can change, I really don't see how it's right for Sirfurboy to just ignore the previous consensus which he was a part of making, then change the content to his wording without proposing it and without much discussion and with no apparent mandate to override the previous consensus. 86.187.167.188 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you pinged me here. Please bring this up on the article Talk page, or file a report at ANI about the user's behavior. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)