Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Non-neutral paid editor

In an attempt to refocus this long discussion and work on bringing it to a close, please respond to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is the voluntary commitment sufficient? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There has been consensus to impose a community-initiated topic ban. Please join Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion continuation for community-imposed topic ban to discuss the conditions — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@EMsmile is heavily editing Solar_radiation_modification in favour of her declared client, www.earthsystemgovernance.org. This has included placing undue weight material in the body and lead, and attacking rival organisations (ie the DEGREES initiative). Despite multiple appeals on the article talk page / her personal talk page, she's still at it - wasting everyone's time with long discussion posts arguing in favour of biasing the page. She just needs to be locked out of this article and related articles, and - if that's not possible - given a temporary or permanent ban. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:

• [1] Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
• [2] Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
• [3] - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
• [4] Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.

An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably WP:NOTHERE. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

done Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly WP:GF reasons for them.

1. By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as "has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world" and "The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality" + "The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"? Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate WP:NOTNEWS and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a very strong statement cited to...an obscure book, seemingly not even peer-reviewed.
2. Wikipedia should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally WP:RECENT, and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. If that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, then it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it.
3. Do you really think phrases like "China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments." are consistent with WP:NPOV? Really? Maybe cutting all of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
4. That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently an internal publication of the Central Bank of Hungary. It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.

In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably WP:NOTHERE" seems downright Kafkaesque. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns here? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:PROMOTIONAL manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that WP:PAID is supposed to prevent. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like Climate change, you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't bad by Wikipedia's general standards - but simply not good enough or relevant enough for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.

Given this context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not obligated to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @EMsmile's paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @Andrewjlockley provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/

My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. TERSEYES (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding: Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 TERSEYES (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• An editor with a declared COI should never be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the strongly discouraged wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Aquillion So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this (Redacted)?

  Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that if Earth System Governance is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering is not even seen anywhere on their front page - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as Research Framework. The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban) - that would be wrong. See WP:SELFCITE; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we want editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS Having a perspective on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. WP:PAID editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Wikipedia are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then WP:COI needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.

It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah WP:PAID editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that every edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it strictly barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's not the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change strongly discouraged to prohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism). I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though.

Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be manually saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that editors who are paid to edit Wikipedia are supposed to work through edit requests - but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I need to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to this case, rather than a general statement.

Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this Uh, guys? Does WP:OUTING mean nothing to you? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger - I think that sanction should be swiftly applied. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. TiggerJay (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: @InformationToKnowledge:, do not attempt to link a Wikipedia user with anyone's real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the principles of privacy still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. TiggerJay (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Could we get an edit to WP:OUTTING for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG back to Andrewjlockley

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. However, that does not change the fact she has been one of a literal handful of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in WikiProject: Climate change over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.

With that in mind, I would like to say I have great difficulty assuming WP:GF here - not when the OP editor (Redacted), which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective and when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.

I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of Chapter 16 of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.

P.S. This is really not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Wikipedia. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.

All of this is pertinent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that EMSmile has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that Andrewjlockley is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. WP:OUTING concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.

The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If InformationToKnowledge is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be they both should be though.

Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. TiggerJay (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Please reread WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS. The suggestion that being a published academic on a subject constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Wikipedia in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of WP:EXTERNALREL, which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

as per (Redacted) is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.

Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to WP:SELFCITE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse. [5]

If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Wikipedia. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Fellows before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Wikipedia and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Wikipedia as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for WP:COI that arises as a result.
• With regards to SRM has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the version of 15 May 2024). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Wikipedia before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Wikipedia in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
• AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for more SRM research in their day job (Redacted). Also, User:Thisredrock explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Wikipedia article (given that it would be against doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
• I have been editing Wikipedia for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by User:Thisredrock on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
• Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery orDARVO, but I'll respond anyway.

I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.

Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I wish to clarify the relationship between the Earth System Governance project (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the campaign for a 'Non-use Agreement' (NUA) on solar radiation modification (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.

Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was the founder of ESG and its first chair, for ten years, and is the editor in chief of its journall. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is a member of ESG's 11-member leadership board , one of five authors of its current implementation plan , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of ESG's series of short books. By quick count, of the other 14 authors on the NUA's founding paper, one other is on the governing board, at least eight are lead faculty, at least two are senior research fellows, and one is among the journal's six editors.

In the other direction, of ESG's 11-member governing board, eight have signed the NUA sign-on statement.

The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. TERSEYES (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@TERSEYES, would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? TiggerJay (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The NUA coordination group, [6] seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.

For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an oversight on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? jp×g🗯️ 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk · contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  ... gonna ask in talk page of WP:OUTTING if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Bushranger, I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz: the diff of them placing it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is here - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named User:Johnjacobjingleheimer, then it constitutes WP:OUTING (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Wikipedia being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. jp×g🗯️ 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️ 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at WP:OUTTING think it would be easier to avoid.

  opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.

  alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  JPxG, to be fair, I've seen two or three days of ANI be OS'd simply because a user stated they were a minor. JayCubby 15:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on their admission of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant WP:HARASSMENT and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't WP:OUTING people or contacting their employers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Wikipedia is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Wikipedia editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.

  Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.

  BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,

  the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.

  AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable wikipedia rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.

  Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Thisredrock (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does Wikimedian in Residence apply?

EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit wikipedia seems analagous to | wikimedian in residence. See also WP:WIRCOI. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no WP:TEND. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

My situation is totally different to @EMsmile. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Wikipedia page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @EMsmile adjusting the page to favour her client (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the SRM article here. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per WP:DUE.

Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding WP:OUTTING- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.

Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Wikipedia editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. EMsmile is a paid editor who violated WP:OUTING - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight are highly disruptive - and that's notwithstanding the paid editing. Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Wikipedia to do the curtailing. Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose block, support WP:TROUTing EMS for almost WP:OUTTING, WP:TROUTing AJL for aggressive interactions, warning ITK for WP:OUTTING.- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.

the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically WP:WIRCOI suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

From WP:WIRCOI WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia - this seems not to be the case here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.

want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi appliesBluethricecreamman (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by Bluethricecreamman - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. Thisredrock (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Part of the thing is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. Bluethricecreamman has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether EMsmile was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Wikipedia for pay. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see User:EMsmile apologize for the WP:OUTING that occurred. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. EMsmile (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (uninvolved) there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in simple ignorance (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not WP:PUNISH).

That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, it fails a DUCK test, and looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor. What I see is a properly disclosed WP:PAID editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors. Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't WP:CPUSH going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :TiggerJay (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: ((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above) 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month, 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI. They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including very questionable off-wiki behavior[7], and never actually citing policy except once where WP:PAID was completely misrepresented[8]. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT recent contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts[9][10]. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month for over 11 years)... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either WP:OWN or WP:SOCK. TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe everyone gets WP:TROUTs at this point and we move on? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.

However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for 'potential civil-POV which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like this might come off is overly whitewashing, but China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations. but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does call into need for a closer look, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group

mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, WP:NOTTHEM applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that WP:PAID only strongly discourages paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and IMO unthinkable They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.
  I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I am much more concerned about undeclared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Wikipedia. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Wikipedia. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Wikipedia . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Wikipedia they are acting as a sock puppet WP:SOCK . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Wikipedia to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  I meant meat puppet. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates with no opinion on indef block at this time.

From what I can see, Earth System Governance looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the COI guideline: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia". More broadly, we have a movement-wide custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution" (emphasis in the original). Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination:

• August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client.[11] All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA.
• Nov 18, 2024: EMsmile added the name of Frank Biermann, her client's founder, to the SRM article.[12]. When you have a COI, this kind of edit is PR/marketing. Her edit summary was ""copy edits, added wikilink", i.e. there was no indication of substantial or COI editing in her edit summary.
• Jan 15 2024: When challenged about the NUA-related content, EMsmile responded with a ~600 word wall of text, followed by a ~400 word wall of text, followed by several shorter comments, all about advocating for more NUA content than other editors wanted.[13] Tne persistence and sheer amount of text are not in line with WP:PAYTALK , which says that COI editors must be concise and mindful of not wasting volunteer editors' time. Several of her comments also cut up another editor's comment, in violation of WP:TPO.

When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks."[14] I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil.

EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Wikipedia now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Wikipedia editing policies.." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page."[15] Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Wikipedia to advocate for your client.

It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked at Earth System Governance Project last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG.[16] She has according to the authorship statistics written 73% of the article, in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.

I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Wikipedia but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Wikipedia as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Wikipedia to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Wikipedia. The opportunity is to improve Wikipedia articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello User:Clayoquot, we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of WikiProject Climate Change. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (Earth System Governance Project (which is an alliance), nor the concept earth system governance itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Wikipedia article about themselves, neither do they have a website.

FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: earth system governance and Earth System Governance Project, then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).

FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.

If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for Earth System Governance Project apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from earth system governance? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?

Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Wikipedia articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.

Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks in this thread but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Wikipedia in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." EMsmile (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't paid editing or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are directly adding quotes from the project's mission statement, which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.

Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact they even use the same website, which states that [t]he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community. This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to WP:COI/N, or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

did report to WP:COI/N Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they do make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. edits that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:COI/N put this back into our court. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile

I added this heading just now to break up a section that was getting long Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Wikipedia article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its direct affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from citing the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)?

[As an aside: My client for the work on the SRM article, i.e. ESG Foundation, has no position on geoengineering, and has not even endorsed the Solar Geoengineering Non-use Agreement (SGNUA) Open Letter. So the link between ESG Foundation and SGNUA might not be as direct as some might think. There is an indirect link via people though - sure.]

By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on opposition to SRM research (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week).

SRM is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-)

I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those grey areas while editing the solar radiation modification article as mentioned above by User:North8000. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the solar radiation modification article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged").

Oh and should the section on my profile page where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

For the topic ban, you can add it to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about WP:DUE. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being a pioneer in opposing SRM research is sourced... to ETC Group itself). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a small set of exemptions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not.

For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. EMsmile (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at Talk:Solar radiation modification violated WP:PAYTALK quite egregiously. Do you disagree?

Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I tried to make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive.

Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive."

I believe my edits for the solar radiation modification article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates would not stop you from editing the SRM talk page. It would only stop you from editing the SRM talk page on the topic of ESG and its affiliates. And regarding your history on the SRM talk page, I'm sorry I think you just don't get it. The length of your posts there is a symptom of the attitude that you expressed in other ways. You took the position that you, a paid COI editor, get an equal say in the editorial decision-making process. Instead of offering information and then deferring to the judgement of unconflicted editors, you repeatedly asked for the article to be made more favorable to your client. And unless you are topic banned I see no reason to think you will not do it again. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to know what other editors think of edits like this at SRM and this at Frank Biermann (an article written almost entirely by EMsmile while being paid by ESG). Do the uninvolved people here see these as PR or not PR? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

(involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before). To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Femke, I've modified the Frank Biermann article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion.

I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the Earth System Governance Project article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the solar radiation modification article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page here. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We are making some progress. Your voluntary restriction, as currently worded, is quite far off from a topic ban or even a mainspace topic ban. A topic ban on the ESGF would stop you from, for example, adding a mention of Biermann or the ESGP to articles like Solar radiation management. You have written about your client in multiple articles that are not in your voluntary restriction.

At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a edit request to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for earth system governance" [17]. You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be extended to future employers too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Wikipedia. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Femke. jp×g🗯️ 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support and will withdraw my proposal above. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  They are confirmed (below). North8000 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Femke. also this discussion has gone too long and is nearly 0.5 WP:TOMATs long. We should end it somehow, and some kinda editting restriction is warranted at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Femke, while a block is far too much, a topic ban (with or without edit requests) seems more reasonable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as proposer and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support While I do believe that EMS has made some positive contributions, they have also made some egregious errors. If this was not a situation of PE or COI, then at most we'd probably consider a voluntary ban, but given the PE/COI concerns, once you've lost the trust of the community, it is going to be extremely difficult to overcome that cloud. When doing PE/COI work one must be extremely carefully not to make any questionable or promotional edits, they must be 100% defendable, and what we've seen here is that there are multiple instances where that is absolutely not the case. It is a difficult choice because there is a mountain on good work, lots of history and many examples of following procedures and presuming good faith. As I mentioned early on, this might be a case of sealioning, where we've got a civil contributor who is still pushing for a specific POV. These are always difficult. But in looking back at specific edits, and even by EMS own admission, that mistakes were made, and the threshold for when we loose trust and faith in a PE has been exceeded. And while I'd hate to mess with someones livelihood and income, it does not appear that is EMS' primary income, and thus I think that it is appropriate that this ban also extend to any other PE works now and in the future. TiggerJay (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll be honest that without the COI element I'd not be seeking any sort of sanction bigger than a trout. However I take the COI part very seriously and that's the locus of my concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed! TiggerJay (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  (I'm going to use the COI term with the meaning which I think you intended....IMO the Wiki-meanings are too broad and variable). IMO the golden rule (which IMO was mistakenly taken out of the COI guideline) is (paraphrasing) that where influence from the COI connection overrides the duty to edit properly in the interests/objectives of Wikipedia, you have an (in practice) COI. And the policy says that in the highest-risk condition (PE) they are strongly discouraged (not forbidden) from editing directly. IMO good practice in relation to this is that edits where there is any COI type question about the edit that they should request somebody else to put it in. While I haven't taken a deep dive on their edits, from looking at the ones presented to make the case that they are problematic, I see only minor violations of that "good practice" and no explicit violations of policy. Another consideration in my mind is that IMO undisclosed paid editing is a huge problem in Wikipedia and IMO Wikipedia being overly rough on disclosed paid editing contributes to that "undisclosed" problem. Finally, the described voluntary restrictions if adhered to (and with them as a 60k editor with only a tiny fraction of their edits being PE, I expect would happen) would remove all question for a year and then be just normal practices (and all of that inevitably under a magnifying glass, with the obvious option of coming back here if needed) IMO would solve it. Which is why I suggest (only) the voluntary restrictions at this time Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  In principle I agree that it's great if we can avoid UPE. I trust EMSmile fully to abide by a topic ban, so I don't see that as a risk here. I don't think it's accurate to say a tiny part of their edits are PE; I reduced my activity in the climate change project for years, waiting for EMSmile to finish her paid editing stint, as I had become quite frustrated arguing against KPI-driven editing. For instance, high-speed editing with loads of unnecessary quotes, as we see in her article Frank Biermann and Earth System Governance Project. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  What I was using when I said that only a part of their edits are PE is that they have 60,000 edits over 10 years on 5,412 different pages, and it looks like they are good at declaring when they do PE work. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons already outlined by the various others who support a topic ban. Axad12 (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Since it's scattered in three places, an overview here might be good. The restrictions that they have already committed to and are already under mirror the proposal (for one year) with the exception that they can participate on those two talk pages (only) if pinged. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Where has EMsmile committed to stopping COI editing at Solar radiation management? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was comparing their self-imposed restrictions to to what you wrote at the start of this subthread. And regarding the SRM article, there I think that the scope of their self-imposed restriction (at their page) mirrored what you wrote, which at the SRM article is just on non-use-agreement related. I guess the the other possibility that fell within what you wrote up would be talking about the ESG org and it's founder at the SRM article, but as I understand it that has not been in there /questioned/an issue (except within the non-use-agreement area) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I see what you mean now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I restored this thread after it was auto-archived. After this much editor time has gone into a discussion I hope it can be closed by a human instead of being left unresolved. Could an admin please close it? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

There might be a reason this looooong discussion hasn't been closed yet, Clayoquot. I doubt many admins will fight for the opportunity to dive in and sort out this lengthy discussion. If this gets archived again, please do not unarchive it a second time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand, and I won't unarchive it a second time. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Clayoquot, I might have misunderstood, were you seeking a closure of all parts of this discussion thread or only the topic ban proposal section right here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Just the topic ban, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 11:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

IMO with their self-imposed voluntary restrictions already in place, and based on the size and particulars of their track record, I don't think that they would violate them, that it's time to let this one go. (by whatever method) I think that undeclared PE is a big problem and being overly rough on declared PE contributes to that problem. Editor has over 60K Wikipedia contributions and it appears only a small fraction are PE. While I know that the nature of the PE organizations technically doesn't matter, I think that it's worth noting that the clients appear to be environmental advocate type organizations. One other side note; this subthread spans both before and after they put the self-imposed restrictions in place. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I have avoided commenting on EMsmile's track record because AN/I is a poor venue for assessing the overall histories of good-faith, prolific, polite editors of technical subject areas. But since a few people have brought it up, I have to say that there is complexity to it and I've often experienced the frustration that Femke expressed below, while also appreciating EMsmile's many positive contributions. I wonder how much scrutiny has been done given that nobody seems to have noticed four copyright warnings and a still-open Contributor copyright investigation.

I do agree with you that undeclared paid editing is far a bigger problem. The community consensus as captured in the COI guideline is to require certain types of self-restraint for declared COI editors even though this will have the effect of discouraging declaration; it's a trade-off we have collectively accepted. I also agree that there is not much difference in scope between EMsmiles' voluntary restriction and the proposed topic ban, but this only makes me wonder why she wants a narrower scope. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Other than the 1 year expiration, I think that the scope is essentially the same. North8000 (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

One other difference is whether this applies to future paid editing. Most of the people in this section support that as well. Given there were some (way more subtle) issues with COI before, I think this is an important distinction. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per my arguments above, obviously. I still believe they should be indeffed - they've egregiously engaged in strongly discouraged behavior with no hint of respect for the relevant policies - but at the bare minimum they should never be allowed to touch these topic areas ever again. If we're not going to sanction for clear violations like this, what is even the point of WP:PAID? It is not intended to be a policy that people can simply decide doesn't apply to them. And the idea that a voluntary restriction could be enough at this point is absurd; the entire reason we're here is because voluntary restrictions haven't worked. Regardless, I feel that people undersell the extent to which paid editing threatens both our mission and our reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support, but I'm also wondering whether a topic ban from paid editing (construed broadly to include any edits on any topic they had ever been paid to edit) in general wouldn't be more appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think more evidence of misconduct is needed to support this. Most of EMSmile's edits in the last few years are done Wikemedian-in-Residence like constructions. I've objected to some of this editing in the past, but there's a lot of good stuff there too. She manages to reach experts in the field all the time to fact-check our articles, and request more up-to-date sourcing. And she replies to feedback, after some insistence, to align KPIs with Wikipedia P&Gs (e.g., she stopped expanding leads to ~600 words after I pointed her to WP:LEADLENGTH). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Femke: They shouldn't be directly editing leads at all... If they are routinely directly editing articles with which they have a COI despite being strongly discouraged that is a problem... Doing what is strongly discouraged as the norm and not an exception *is misconduct* (or if you want to put it a different way a failure to align their editing behavior with P+Gs) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Most of EMSmile's previous paid work did not have a COI element to it really, and was closer to a WiR position. For instance, she was paid by Formas to broadly improve climate change articles. In her newer projects, both this one—but possibly also the one for Utrecht University—there is a clearer COI element: promoting organisations directly and citing related researchers substantially more than others. That needs to stop, but those WiR-like positions? I wouldn't think it's needed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  The COI rules for WiR are the exact same, we don't make any exceptions for them. All paid edits fall under COI, WiR or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: If anyone wants to critique the above-mentioned project funded by Formas, for which I got the funding and under which I edited during 2020-2024, you can find it here (feel free to comment on the talk page there): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/SDGs/Communication_of_environment_SDGs (by the way: only a small part of my editing hours were paid for by that grant; a large proportion was actually volunteer editing). Under this project, many articles in the climate change topic range (132 to be precise) were improved (see here).

Is it possible that some people who have commented in this thread dislike any form of paid editing? Comments such as "Regardless, I feel that people undersell the extent to which paid editing threatens both our mission and our reputation" seem to indicate that some people want to ban all paid editing. I think there are many scenarios were paid editing (which adhere to Wikipedia policies around COI) can be very beneficial, e.g. when the money comes from a grant on science communication (like the Formas project did), from a WiR program, or from someone's university (e.g. when academics or PhD students do a bit of editing on their area of expertise during their day job) or from a consultancy with a mission-aligned organisation.

Also, this statement is upsetting for me, and I think it misunderstands the work that I did under the Formas-funded project: "I'm also wondering whether a topic ban from paid editing (construed broadly to include any edits on any topic they had ever been paid to edit) in general wouldn't be more appropriate."

Can we rather agree that if the relevant policies around COI are followed then some types of paid editing can be good for Wikipedia? I think the Formas-funded Wikipedia project was good, and I wish we had more of them.

And, in order to try and conclude this ANI thread, could someone please tell me how you want me to change the wording of the voluntary restrictions on my user page? They should be not voluntary but forced? You want them to be longer than one year? Indefinite? For as long as I am under any paid editing arrangement, even if the future funding source had nothing to do with ESGP and Frank Biermann? EMsmile (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are routinely directly editing articles then you are not following the relevant policies around COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@EMsmile, I agree with that paid editing can be very beneficial in a WiR-style project. The community has a range of reasonably-held views on this, but written policy does allow WiRs to edit articles directly and routinely in some circumstances. To answer your question, what's missing is 1) a commitment that covers 6.9 million articles, not just 3 articles, 2) an indefinite time period, and 3) having the commitment be to avoid all editing about all current and future clients and their affiliates. None of this would stop you from fully executing what you said is your mandate at Solar radiation management. It wouldn't stop you from bringing this article to GA or FA status - in fact it would probably help.

Regarding forced vs voluntary, in principle I prefer voluntary restrictions. There are two reasons I think a forced restriction would be useful in this particular case. First, you've had a statement on your userpage for years that I always strive to strictly abide by Wikipedia's accepted practices on conflicts of interest and that statement did not prevent this fiasco. Second, in the current AN/I discussion I believe I've seen sustained wikilawyering from you on the scope of your COI, specifically on the question of whether you have a COI for the ESGP. It sounds like someone saying that they work for the Coca-Cola Company but don't have a COI for Coca-Cola. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"written policy does allow WiRs to edit articles directly and routinely in some circumstances" so the only WiRs who can routinely do that are those who aren't paid, all paid editors are required to follow WP:PE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the relevant section of WP:PE? It says "There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Those are the restrictions for the forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable... Those which we do not are completely banned. We have repeatedly sanctioned WiRs with COI issues with their host institution, the nuance is generally in "mission-aligned" because promotion is not mission-aligned but is what stakeholders generally want out of WiR (the ones I know say thats the hardest part of the job). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

To: Horse Eye's Back about the general issue of paid editing: this seems to turn into a general discussion about paid editing. Let me ask you something: if a Post-doc researcher spends some hours out of their day to improve a Wikipedia article (during their day job) on a topic where they have some knowledge, would you say "you are a paid editor, go away!"? When a university uses their science communication department to add information coming out of their peer-reviewed publication would you also want to ban that? (See here, by the way, interesting Wikimedia Science Communication Network - promoting just that). What about someone like User:Noura2021 who is doing good work on Wikipedia and says on their user page: "I'm working as part of a European Union GLAM project at the European Investment Bank on Wikipedia to hopefully enhance knowledge across topics".

Is it possible that you have a very narrow view of "paid editing" and what it does to Wikipedia? I've been looking around for further guidance and essays on Wikipedia about "paid editing" and found various bits and pieces. This essay is actually very interesting: WP:CRY. It says there: This page in a nutshell: Do not attack editors just because they are paid editors or have a conflict of interest. and Several times in several essays users have tried to propose policies to essentially ban paid editing. These proposals are, however, too vague, and lead to witch-hunting of editors, both paid and not. It essentially causes other users to go after paid editors for disagreeing with them..

To sum up, this is complicated. And I don't think your narrow view on basically banning all paid editing (if I understood you correctly?) is currently supported by the community. Please do take a look at the Formas-funded project that I mentioned above. I think it was very beneficial for many Wikipedia articles on climate change, and we should try to have more projects like that. EMsmile (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes you misunderstand, I am proposing that we ban this editor (you, EMsmile) from paid editing... I am not proposing that we ban paid editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

IMO this is moving close to a "drop the stick" situation. An editor with 60k contributions with only a tiny fraction PE, and thos are all environmental advocacy orgs, and already implemented self-restrictions covering in the relevant areas, seems open to others which are not too onerous, record of being open, transparent and well-intentioned. North8000 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@North8000: what is that fraction? You've obviously done the math so what fraction or percentage of their edits are PE? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@EMsmile: since @North8000: seems to be unwilling to be transparent perhaps you can help us out... What percentage of your edits are PE and how do you differentiate paid edits from unpaid edits? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Quit the crap. I was doing you a favor by not engaging on your straw man mis-statement regarding what I wrote. (acting as if I claimed that I did a full mathematical analysis of their entire 60K of edits on thousands of pages) And now you double down by mis-stating that as "unwilling to be transparent". North8000 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@North8000: I'm not acting as if you did a full mathematical analysis, I'm acting like you have a general fraction which can be provided. Are we talking 1/100th, 1/20th, 1/10th, 1/5th, etc. If the answer is that you don't know what fraction of edits are PE you can also say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: One word. Don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: what is the aspersion? North8000 has repeated the claim that the edits make up a small fraction of the total edits three different times (just search above for fraction)... Without ever actually supporting that claim. Maybe you would like to weigh in here but it seems that a large portion of the edits made by this account[18] (perhaps even a majority) are covered by their disclosed paid gigs. For example we have five years of paid editing about Sustainable Development Goals and 773 edits to Sustainable Development Goals. Likewise it seems that edits to water related topics are covered by a paid editing agreement, the disclosure says "Here, the idea is to improve relevant Wikipedia articles that touch on climate resilient WASH topics, e.g. the Wikipedia articles on water security, WASH, effects of climate change on the water cycle, effects of climate change, groundwater, water resources, climate resilience." and we have 569 edits to WASH, 501 edits to Effects of climate change, 337 edits to Water security, 320 edits to Sewage treatment, 315 edits to Urine-diverting dry toilet, 303 edits to Open defecation etc etc etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

To answer the question of Horse Eye's Back from yesterday: My paid editing work is a small fraction of my overall Wikipedia editing in the last ten years but I don't know the number. My editing hours went far beyond what was covered in any of those paid editing gigs. Those contracts were actually much smaller than you might think.

To give you an example: say I had funding to improve the article on WASH. Say I got 8 hours. I usually ended up working on it for far, far longer as the topic simply interested me and I have some background knowledge on it, therefore often editing late into the night, like other volunteers do, too. Can you see the similarity in all the Wikipedia articles that you have listed there which I have worked on? They are all environmental / sustainable development / climate change topics. These are topics that interest me personally and where I have some background knowledge (or have skilled up in the meantime). I have worked on them in a Wikipedia-in-Residence type capacity with lots and lots of volunteer hours thrown in, too. Because I enjoy the work. I also helped organise and facilitiate two fairly large online edit-a-thons in 2020, one on SDGs and one on climate change.

But let me make a suggestion: I invite you to have a more detailed discussion about my editing activities on my talk page if you like (including the question if it would be wiser to operate with two Wikipedia accounts; I am wondering about that). - Please, let's not take up any more valuable volunteer time here in this AN/I thread. EMsmile (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

So how can someone tell whether an edit you made was paid or not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this, but having worked on many of the same articles as EMsmile that were in the scope of her 2022-2024 climate change project, I don't think COI editing was part of that project. Different clients expect different things. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can't deny Clayoquot makes a strong case for this. But opposing as not needed per voluntary restriction, and on the practical grounds that a formal restriction for EMsmile may cause Tyler Durden to consider his actions "fully justified". Even if he sincerely thinks he's saving the world, there's no excuse for attempting to contact the employer of a well liked and respected editor. WP:RGW. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  You make it sound as if contacting the employer of a less-liked editor is OK. FWIW, EMsmile's employer was not contacted. Andrewjlockley wrote the letter without taking 30 seconds to find out who her employer was and he sent it to an organization that wasn't her employer. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Voluntary restrictions

@EMsmile: Just clarifying

• When the Earth System Governance Project and Frank Biermann "zero editing" restrictions expire a year from now, of course if you were under any relevant PE arrangement all of the rules related to that would be in force.
• Did you say that you were under a relevant PE arrangement on the Solar radiation modification article? If not, please ignore the rest of this. If so, while still under it (until you explicitly say it is over), for the areas not covered by your "zero edit" self-restriction, would you agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in the other areas of the article? Until then, ask someone else to put in any edits that are not clearly merely-gnome edits?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello North8000: to answer your comments/questions:

• To the first point: Yes, I understand that and agree.
• The second point: Yes, the PE arrangement was to improve the solar radiation modification article in several ways and in collaboration with others: one was just general improvements, structure, clarity, updated references, images, wikilinks and so forth. The other was to make the article more balanced because we felt that the current discourse about risks of SRM research was not very well described and relevant publications had not been cited. There was already a section on "criticism" when I started editing the article but as per WP:CRIT it wasn't well done (in my opinion). I started discussing this on the talk page of the SRM article in May 2024. There were some page watchers who agreed, some who disagreed - which is normal. And yes, I agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in future. Could I clarify this small point: When you say "ask someone else to put in any edits" how would that work in practice? Would pinging someone on the talk page, e.g. you, be acceptable or would people find that annoying and "pushy"? EMsmile (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. regarding the point made by Femke above ("You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago."): the sentence in question on the ESGP website in fact says (bolding added by me): "The Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community." This sentence actually means mainly to try to get accreditations at UN conferences for ESG-related scholars, who can then enter UN meetings as representatives of the ESG Foundation. It is not the representation of the “project”, which has no legal entity, no positions, no fixed income, etc. - I have made some changes to my user profile page too in order to explain it better. Hope this helps to clarify. EMsmile (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That takes care of everything I asked about. I did a lot of work with perhaps wiki's most prominent PE (CorporateM) prominent because they had high visibility discussions all over the place on the whole idea and how to do it best/right. Maybe it's emblematic of the challenges that they are mostly gone now. Plus several others. Answering your question I know that there are lots of ways, (some are really backed up partly because most people don't know how to do a requested edit well) but what worked was just putting the requested edit on the article's talk page. Feel free to ping me there if you wish. The common mistake with requested edits to to not make it explicit. Say exactly what would be taken out and exactly what would be put in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I really don't know where in this discussion to write this, so I might as well put it at the end. One of the arguments against paid editors is that they take up too much volunteer time. Does the length of this discussion not mean that those who argue in this way have a point? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for closing TBAN proposal

Can somebody please close the TBAN proposal. Despite the wall of text, consensus seems clear, and discussion is way past the point on productivity. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Reopened

I’m undoing my close as there seems to be a desire from the community to continue the discussion as seen from my talk page and also a closure review at WP:AN (which is filed by the TBAN proposer above, who also has unarchived this discussion once back in January). I can be wrong though. Any uninvolved admin without a COI is free to close the discussion again at any time. PS. I don’t agree with some of the untrue claims on my talk and at WP:AN. To be frank, I’m quite upset about them. OTOH, I understand it’s not uncommon and that they probably stems from the risk of closing a controversial case where both parties hold a strong belief. Lastly, I hope editors can note the association between the Global Systems Institue of the University of exeter and Solar radiation modification. Anyway, I’m running out of my “volunteer hours”. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. A wish has been expressed by many people at WP:AN that the topic ban proposal be closed by an admin. I will tag this section to not be automatically archived. The closing admin can remove the DNAU tag when closing. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that your closure (in essence a "no community consensus" finding) was a a pragmatic acknowledgement that this this has gotten so protracted, convoluted, stale, and with significant changes (including the voluntary restrictions and the end of the PE situation on the SRM article) after the earlier comments, and having turned into a walled garden and a "stick" type situation that it was not possible to read a current community consensus either way. IMO, if this were to be carried further, it would need a complete restart for the above reasons. I took an interest in this because IMO it has numerous common Wikipedia issues with it that can result in being harmful to or losing a good editor, with no sufficient basis. Thanks for your efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

While we are on the subject...

I'm copying this over from the thread that led to the reopeneing as it didn't get much discussion before we moved back over here. I've decided to take a break so do what you will with it. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 20:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want to re-open this after the incredible length of the previous thread, but since we're here: There is another issue here. Not so recent, but for years EM smile was blatantly canvassing people to make specific Wikipedai edits. Let's discuss which definition of "sanitation" we think is the most useful one? (and edit the Wikipedia article accordingly) is pretty blatant. So are these others: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Just in case anyone is concerned about outing, it isn't. As I said above, none of this is particularly recent, but if it had been noted at the time, all of the other recent drama might have been prevented. This is absolutely blatant canvassing. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC) The first link is suspicious -- saying, effectively, "let's all go make this article useful to us". As I clicked the next couple links, I don't see canvassing, though. I see someone consulting external experts to encourage them to edit or to suggest edits to improve an article. That's something many of us have done when editing articles that benefit from expertise (like many science topics). In this post, I see someone trying to convince an expert to contribute, using standard wiki-evangelist language you'd hear at an edit-a-thon. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated fresh start is needed if this is to be continued

It has been open a long time and was brought back from archiving, a close review requested (causing the closer to reverse their close) and marked to prevent archiving all by the same individual. The editing restriction section was when a (apparently grant-type) PE arrangement was in place on the subject articles (the end of which was announced Feb 17th) and a portion of that section was prior to the self-imposed voluntary restrictions being put into place. If restrictions are to be pursued, IMO an updated fresh start is needed to reflect the current situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand why the close was reverted but I groaned when I saw this discussion reopened. I just am not optimistic we have any admins or experienced editors who want to sort through this two month-long discussion. My guess is that this whole debate will just get archived again. And if some lone editor "unarchives" this a seoond time, I might have to swear off helping on this noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: The same individual set it so that it won't archive. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, there was a strong consensus at WP:AN to revert the close, this wasn't all the decision of a single individual, even if the same person who opened the close review ended up marking against archiving. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby, I just meant one lone editor "unarchived" this discussion when the bot archived it earlier this year. It was not about a discussion closure or unclosure. I just remember that the bot had put this discussion in the ANI archives and one editor brought it back but I don't recall who, it doesn't matter who and I'm not going to read through all of this debate to find out. It was just an odd comment on my part, showing that I was weary of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, no worries, I was just adding a clarification for other users who might read this! Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Noting that the voluntary restrictions have also been reverted since the thread was reopened. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

They are still in place, where EMsmile put them which is on their user page. The copy of them on the list was reverted by the person who reverted their own close; their close was to leave it as the voluntary restrictions. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to do here. The community has expressed a wish that this discussion be closed by an admin, admins are volunteers and we don't know if or when any of them are willing to close it, and one person (North8000) seems to object to it being tagged for non-archiving but hasn't actually said that they want it to be archived.

"Object" is a strong word. I don't object, but do think it's better to just let it be archived. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I personally would be satisfied by a commitment from EMsmile to never again edit with regard to subjects in which she has a COI, but I have not seen such a commitment and I don't know if it would satisfy others. @North8000 regarding (apparently grant-type) PE arrangement) where was the statement suggesting this? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a voluntary commitment like that as well. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

As a (prior) supporter of the non-voluntary TBAN above, the desired outcome of ANIs are not always some sort of administrative closure nor punitive, but rather to address urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. It would seem like to a large degree that objective has been met and the behavioral evidence would suggest that do the degree which EMsmiles previously disruptive edits, that is no longer the case. They are clearly aware of the conflict and probably more aware than ever of the current consensus regarding paid editing. Since the "urgent" threat to the project appears to have been resolved, I would suggest that this could be closed for now, but should behavioral problems reoccur that it should not take a huge conversation but rather short and swift action. TiggerJay (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

As I've said many times in broad discussions, IMO COI is far too broadly defined in Wikipedia. This was about (declared) PE and I think that the voluntary restrictions cover the areas involved. I'm guessing that after this they would err on the safe side on any future PE arrangements. If pinged I'd be happy to "check in" anywhere or hang out at any article in question for a few months. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Answering the question, from what is now a medium-depth look, their PE work seems to be from environmental and "human-condition" advocacy organizations seeking to further those causes. I used the word "grant-like" to characterize those types, making a distinction from PE work which is engaged to further the financial or business interests of a client. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

While much of her past paid work has been aimed at improving coverage of environmental/human causes, the particular PE arrangement that led to this AN/I thread was at least partly promotional in nature. The project seems to have included creating a biography of the organization's founder, which is not generally what a "grant" is for. This was straight-up PR. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Question to User:North8000: how were you aware of the draft EMSmile had about Frank Biermann? It was originally made as a user subpage, and you moved it to mainspace two days after creation. It had not been submitted as a draft at this point. At that point, the article already contained promotion, which failed verification, such as "Biermann pioneered the earth system governance paradigm in global change research in 2005". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember it or the situation (I review thousands of articles per year, mostly at NPP) but do know the criteria which I use and my MO on situations like those. Which is the official AFC criteria (the article having a reasonable chance of surviving at AFD) which is essentially the same that NPP implements. And with trying to help with the 12,000 + article backlog I look at "article existence" criteria, not other issues (such as you are noting) which are not in the AFC criteria. Which is simply whether or not an article on the topic is allowed to exist in mainspace. (not whether or not it has quality issues) I've had many general discussions at AFC noting that AFC reviewers often violate the AFC criteria and thumbs-down an article for article quality criteria making AFC a bleak place for the creators. And I'm always happy to (and often do) help creators help them avoid that and review articles based on that criteria wherever they are sitting.North8000 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It struck me too as very strange that User:EMsmile/Draft Frank Biermann would have come to North8000's attention. I found a relevant discussion from shortly before North8000 moved it to mainspace. It appears that EMsmile pinged North8000 in an obscure on-wiki page and then followed up by emailing him. This is not the worst possible scenario but it's not our usual arms-length way of working with paid COI editors. IMO North8000 should have advised her to make a public declaration and go through AfC like every other paid editor. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I looked at that link. I think you answered your own "it struck me too as very strange" thought when you noted that I was pinged there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed about 3,000 articles in the last year so that was about 1,500 articles ago so I had to see it rather then remember it. I think what I wrote at the link you gave explains my thought process pretty well. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

While I agree AfC is too strict, especially for newer editors, it is incorrect to say notability is the only thing the reviewing instructions care about. It's also NPOV/BLP etc. Especially for PE, I expect somebody to take a good look at the text as is. The PE criteria says it needs to go through AfC, rather than that you can choose your reviewer.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

There are several errors in your post. I was talking about the official AFC pass fail criteria which summarized above. (in essence, a good chance of article survival at AFD). I did not say that wp:notability was the only criteria within this, just that it is the most common one. Next, my post was about the pass/fail criteria, not the much broader "care about" term which you introduced. "Care about" includes lots of things (which reviewers may wish to comment on) which are not in the AFC criteria, which is what my statement was about. So I never made the (erroneous) statements that you are implying I made. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, where did you get "must go though AFC" from? I looked and didn't see it. (though I'm also an AFC reviewer) North8000 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW, if the official AFC criteria is followed, I think that it's fine rather than too strict. The problem is that very often AFC reviewers don't follow the AFC criteria and decline articles for criteria which they should not be declining articles for. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The requirement (with a should) for going through AfC is at WP:PAY (so not really on you to have missed it). The requirement to assess NPOV etc. at AfC is at Step 3 (suitability) of the AfC reviewing instructions. Not is not something a reviewer "may wish to comment on", but a step in accepting/declining. For newer editors, we should cut some slack and help them make the article suitable. For PE activity, I don't think we should. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the interpretation of that in the current context would be whole other discussion, not needed here. But for AFC sake (and the issues there) I must note that a general comment like that in the instructions (regarding other article quality issues) does not modify the official AFC criteria. The big problem there is folks declining articles for issues that are not in the AFC criteria. I might bring it up there to suggest tweaking to avoid issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the community expects AfC reviewers to make an effort to either decline, reject, or fix promotional pages. It's OK for reviewers to make mistakes about this and I agree that most reviewers are far too strict. But if I understand what you're saying, you don't consider your call on the Frank Biermann draft to be a mistake. You seem to be saying that you accept AfC submissions that you would expected to survive AfD, even if the submission is promotional. is that right? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

There are too many incorrect implied premises in your post for me to spend the time unpacking the whole thing. I already answered exactly what criteria I use which is the official AFC criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Is the voluntary commitment sufficient?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In an attempt to focus this conversation and help bring it to a close, I'm explicitly asking for more responses to this question here. Please note the comments immediately above this heading. Is the voluntary commitment posted at User:EMsmile#Voluntary restrictions sufficient to address the community's concerns? Or do we need further action? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: I will be on semi-wikibreak March 1 to March 21. Any appropriate person is welcome to close this when it is time. However, review Special:Permalink/1277452956#Request for closure review: Topic Ban of EMsmile before closing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the (narrowly worded) voluntary commitment is enough. EMsmile is still primarily editing in her COI topic, with her latest edits all being on Solar radiation modification and related pages, including adding back contested material. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sufficient. Thanks for stepping in. As I said to EMsmile two weeks ago, "Your userpage updates are an improvement but still well short of 6.9 million articles. I don't want to see, for example, you adding the names of ESG people or ESG-related initiatives like the NUA to any articles. "[25] She did not respond, which suggests that she may want to make these kinds of COI edits in the future. I am also concerned that she describes the voluntary restrictions as her response to questions regarding a "possible" poorly managed conflict of interest. She still has yet to acknowledge having violated the COI guideline. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Yes, I have continued editing the SRM article (since 17 Feb in a volunteer capacity), as well as editing other Wikipedia articles over the same time frame. I was told above by Clayoquot: "It wouldn't stop you from bringing this article to GA or FA status - in fact it would probably help." You can see from the SRM talk page and the edit history in the last few weeks that a few of us are working nicely together there, in a highly collaborative and joyful manner, regardless of who we work for (or who we worked for, in my case), and regardless if we are "pro SRM" or "anti-SRM" (notice the recent COI declaration and connected editor declaration of TERSEYES who has written 49% of the article). The sentence that you call here "contested material" had not originally been added by me. It was removed by TERSEYES as part of a larger edit. My suggestion was to put it back in and I had written in the edit summary: " I think the statement was important because a) it had a source whereas the para before doesn't. Secondly, it shows that already in 2009 (not only in 2021) is was regarded as a dead end solution." It can be discussed on the talk page if we do need this article or not.

NB, my voluntary restriction relates to the non-use agreement and how it's mentioned in the SRM article, not the SRM article in total. As far as I can see, Clayoquot and others have not said above that they want me to stop editing the SRM article. EMsmile (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: No, I don't want to "make these kinds of COI edits in the future". There was no particular reason for me not replying to you on my talk page on that aspect, other than general emotional exhaustion with this particular topic (also, it was around the time when the thread had become closed, so I thought it was fine like that). Sorry for dropping the ball there. I thought it was more important to look forward, and for example to figure out if I should have two Wikipedia logins in future or not (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EMsmile#Would_it_be_better_to_have_two_Wikipedia_logins?).

It also wasn't clear to me what the exact wording of this additional voluntary restriction would be that you want to see. Should it be "I shall not add the names of ESG people or ESG-related initiatives like the NUA to any articles."? Could we formulate this with a time restriction, e.g. "for the duration of a paid editing gig from ESG Foundation plus two years after that"? I don't have any particular plans to add names of ESG people to any article but I think once the paid editing gig is long enough in the past, and if I did it as a volunteer role, then why not? You would argue that it rather would have to be "life long", even as a volunteer with sufficient time distance from a paid editing gig?

Overall, my suggestion would be to work together on my talk page (rather than here on this page for urgent incidents) to figure out an additional restriction that you agree with and that is practical and precise. Here is another option: how about we have a video call? This might be easier and faster than trying to work through talk page messages.

And yes, I acknowledge that I've violated the COI guideline. I've updated the relevant sentence on my user profile page as follows now: Prompted by the AN/I in January/February 2025, I've realised and herewith acknowledge that I have violated some of the COI guidelines (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure) during my editing activities in 2024 and the beginning of 2025. Therefore, I have imposed the following voluntary editing restrictions on myself, starting 22 January 2025: [...] (see my user profile page). EMsmile (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for offering a video call. I prefer to discuss on-wiki for transparency as this is a community issue rather than an interpersonal one. Thank you for acknowledging having violated the COI guideline - this is a good step forward. Avoiding conflicts of interest for life is ideal and I'd say 10 years after the end of any engagement with the client (including non-Wikipedia-related engagement) is a minimum. And this needs to be worded to cover all future, current, and past clients, not just one client. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Clayoquot, @EMsmile, would having a sidebar at User talk:EMsmile to workshop a mutually acceptable voluntary restriction be ok? I'm only suggesting having it off this page to avoid drowning this topic in text any further than it already has. The location would provide transparency and the opportunity for others to participate, then it could be brought back here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I welcome the acknowledgement here, and there's no need to put it on your user page as some sort of badge of shame. I would like a much simpler voluntary restriction along the lines of:

• "Prompted by the AN/I in January/February 2025, I commit to not editing about any organisation or people with whom I have a WP:paid editing relationship, or another WP:conflict of interest."

After a PE relation is done, a more typical "COI" relationship develops. For larger projects, ten years might be a good cut-off. For smaller projects, and smaller edits, 2-5 years is fine, I would say.

This would for instance prevent the edits you did very early in your editing career on the SuSanA page, where you had a non-paid COI if I understand correctly. This would also prevent you from name-dropping clients in articles. This would not prevent you from citing them, but I hope you do take care to not unduly cite them and err on the side of citing others wherever feasible. This would allow you to improve the SRM page in most directions, and I still encourage you to write a GA at some point on some topic; it's fun. There would be no exception for pings. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It was made over a month ago. Seems good. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• At this point the voluntary seems fine. PackMecEng (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes (not otherwise involved in these discussions). --JBL (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Courtesy pings to ensure that those who have previously commented on the TBAN proposal are aware of this question: @Aquillion, Horse Eye's Back, Axad12, Tiggerjay, Bluethricecreamman, Simonm223, JPxG, and FeydHuxtable:. (Not pinging Chaotic Enby, Femke and North8000 as they are obviously already aware). As requested by Rsjaffe, discussion on the wording of a possible update to the voluntary restriction is ongoing at User_talk:EMsmile#Description_of_voluntary_restrictions. You might want to see what comes of that discussion before deciding. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  maybe we just let this thread close and end and let the debate go on on their talk page…

  unless it escalates, isnt there some consensus that some topic ban is warranted? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes there is consensus for a topic ban but since no admin wants to say there is consensus for a topic ban, we are back to more talking. The preternaturally kind Femke handed EMsmile the wording for an acceptable voluntary restriction on a freaking silver platter and what we got for it was this wall of text asking us to go read about another SRM editor. Great. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• For what my opinion may be worth: No. It has emerged from the discussion that perhaps inadvertently, perhaps in the mistaken belief that nonprofits are subject to different rules, EMsmile has repeatedly violated the COI and paid editing guidelines, editing for pay without a clear declaration and editing in a way that promoted employers/clients/colleagues, including adding mentions of them and puffery on at least one person. I appreciate that there is now a declaration on their user page, but I'm still not sure they have fully identified the articles where they made edits for pay; is there a list I have missed? Part of the uncertainty may arise from the analogy with Wikipedians in Residence, but it's my understanding that they, too, are subject to the COI guidelines, precisely to ensure paid embedding with some worthy org. doesn't become paid advocacy for that org., no matter how worthy. The earlier discussion, although not unanimous, was heavily in favour of a topic ban—but since the reopening, the "Updated fresh start is needed" section has the effect of making it unclear where to belatedly weigh in on that. Maybe it's a matter of personal style, but EMsmile's responses in this discussion appear to me to be focussed on bargaining, as when they object to being barried from the topic-banned topic on talk pages as well (that's the difference between what a COI editor should be doing, and a topic ban following serious breach of guidelines). Then there's the collapsed section under "While we are on the subject...", which purports to show off-wiki canvassing; but the latest examples I see there are three from 2020. EMsmile has lost my confidence that they can self-police adequately, and that they respect the COI guidelines (and WP:NPOV itself). The original proposal, a topic ban for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its direct affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include[s] the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project., to be indefinite but appealable after 12 months is clear and as Clayoquot stated at the time, intentionally narrow. That makes it a generous offer: an opportunity for the editor to demonstrate they accept they did wrong and can and will follow rules. Although Clayoquot also raised the possibility of voluntary restriction back then, the bargaining since then makes me wonder whether EMsmile is thinking in terms of needing loopholes for future paid editing. Demonstrate adherence; appeal successfully; done, and we can stop being suspicious of their motives and chalk it up to a misapprehension. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. This said, I've much sympathy for Clayoquot & Femke. Over the years I've noticed them spend considerable time correcting false statements made by EMsmile on various climate talk pages. None should worry too much about asking the odd 'stupid' questions or occasionally saying something wrong - it can be the fastest way to get the truth. But doing it too much places a burden on other editors. EMsmile is a lovely person and great at sparking discussion that lead to article improvement. But she's too error prone to be the best choice to lead such discussions on something as vital as climate change - that should be left to folk like Femke, Clayoquot or even RCraig. Example: There's three types of problem simple , complex and wicked Climate change politics has famously been described as 'diabolical' as it takes the challenge to a whole new level. One would like any editor stepping up to reform our CC politics articles to have some conception of this. Recently EMsmile pinged me to a discussion she's leading about re-organising all our CC politics articles and it made me tear out the last of my remaining hair. But said concern with EMsmile has little to do with COI IMO, more to do with the fact she enjoys talk page discussion a little too much and needs to take her time to preview & remove more mistakes before posting. Also, I'd not want to see a thread starter who attempted to contact an editor's employer rewarded by seeing his target sanctioned. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just to note that the issues with source misrepresentation are also present here. I've barely looked, but already fixed two issues [26][27]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Re "attempted to contact an editor's employer" it's pretty clear that Andrew didn't try to find out who EMsmile's employer is.He assumed that NUA promotion was coming from the NUA and fired off an email asking the NUA to knock it off. He obviously didn't look at her user page, which says she works for the ESGF not the NUA. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Replying to User: Yngvadottir: yes that wording for a voluntary restriction is fine by me, I've had no objections to that and had already put it on my profile page on 7 February (see here) "No edits to the Wikipedia articles of organisations that are "affiliated Research Centres" within the Global Alliance of Earth System Governance Research Centres (see here). Also no edits to the Wikipedia articles of any major people within those research centres. These restrictions are to apply for the duration of any paid editing activity plus for one year after any such arrangements have ended.". I am happy to modify the wording if you think it's not quite right. Also happy to include indefinite but appealable after 12 months. I am also fine with this becoming a non-voluntary restriction, rather than a voluntary one, if folks prefer.

With regards to a list of articles that I have edited as part of my paid/sponsored/grant-based activities: I have mentioned some on my user page (under "about me" and under "Articles and pages that I have involved myself in"). For the two online edit-a-thons I was involved with, you can see the list of articles in the Dashboards of these events. For the Formas project, you can see the list of articles here.

Does that answer your question? What makes it perhaps different to other paid editors is that I usually edit the same articles as a volunteer as well, as those are all topics that I am interested in personnally as well (and because the paid budget hours are usually way too small for the all the improvements that are necessary). Hence my question on my talk page if having two separate Wikipedia logins would be better for me (please see discussion there). EMsmile (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem with an edit does not change based on whether it is made between 9 am and 5 pm (as a paid editor) or after 5 pm (as a volunteer). The CoI does not disappear at some time and reappear the next morning, rendering all edits in the interim fine. You have edited in contravention of CoI guidelines and appear to think that the issue is whether the edits were made in your paid or volunteer capacities... this distinction might be meaningful in your mind, but it is irrelevant to the perspectives that matter – the readers of the encyclopaedia and the quality of its content. I agree with Yngvadottir both that you are fortunate not to be facing a harsher restriction and that your ongoing comments undermine confidence in the notion that you actually recognise the scakle or seriousness of the problem. I see little reason for optimism that self-policing will be effective. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@EMsmile your user page lists some of the articles that you have been paid to edit but it does not list all the articles the ESGF paid you to edit. Since the ESGF engagement is the focus of this entire AN/I thread, no you haven't answered Yngvadottir's question. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

At their user page I recommended a clear statement (or section) of all current PE arrangements and the articles involved. (and if it's "none" a clear statement of that) Without this it is unclear. I still recommend this. Maybe even make a commitment to maintain this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, since EMsmile says they're fine with an involuntary restriction, then aren't we there? Enact the topic ban. @Clayoquot: Are there any discrepancies / changes in wording that I've missed? Maybe a restatement here to make sure we're all on the same page? As to the list of articles, I appreciate the problem, EMsmile, since you intermingled paid and unpaid edits and your COI extends beyond the edits you were actually compensated for, but full disclosure is expected: I'd expect to see a full list of articles edited for pay and a good effort at specifying other articles where you have a COI and have edited, maybe behind a cut on your user page, maybe on a dedicated subpage. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The main change in wording that came up was a proposal to make the topic ban extend to future employers/clients. It would be good for the closer to say whether there is consensus for it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion continuation for community-imposed topic ban

Please continue to evaluate the proper limits for the topic ban. Copying from Yngvadottir's restatement of the original proposal: "a topic ban for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include[s] the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project., to be indefinite but appealable after 12 months". What should be changed?

Again, the final result should reflect the community's consensus, and the final decision should clearly be spelled out on this page (there are many competing similar wordings, so explicitly identifying one is important.) I will be on semi-wikibreak soon and encourage any suitable person to close this when appropriate. However, review Special:Permalink/1277452956#Request for closure review: Topic Ban of EMsmile prior to closing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

How about: EMSmile is indefinitely topic-banned from the following topics, broadly construed:

1. All organizations that are employers or paying clients, or that have been employers/paying clients in the past 10 years. This includes all organizations that contribute funding.
2. People who currently hold a key position in these organizations
3. Projects and initiatives that are closely affiliated with these organizations
4. People with whom she has a current or past (up to 10 years) reporting relationship (e.g. members of committees that evaluate her paid work and/or award grants)
5. Exceptions: She may mention these topics to make COI declarations and to answer questions about her COI
6. The topic ban is appealable after 12 months

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that the current voluntary restrictions cover all of the areas of issue. They are over a month old and looks good so far. Also after this giant thing I presume that will be doubly careful. One side note...I've not done any though analysis, but the majority of their PE seems to be environmental advocacy. The proposal mostly centers on things which would be less of this and a more clear cut issue, which is a good thing, but may leave a wrong impression regarding the general nature of the editing. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have now updated my profile page to make it easier to find which PE arrangement I still have currently (i.e. the one with Uni Utrecht), which Wikipedia articles are included in that one, and also updated information on past PE arrangements and which articles I edited there for pay. Since the (now past) ESGF project was the focus of this entire AN/I thread, I copy here from my user page: From June 2024 to 17 February 2025, I had a small consultancy project with the Earth System Governance Foundation. During the project I provided advice and training on Wikipedia editing, and I improved the Wikipedia article on solar radiation modification. I also made some small improvements to the articles on stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening so that they fit better with the SRM article.. I hope this clarifies things. EMsmile (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Under Clayoquot's suggested rewording, the topic ban would cover your current contract with Utrecht University, for example. I believe it's good to be clear: all employers. But in looking at the revisions to your user page, I now notice something that's not new: I solicit contributions of content to Wikipedia and thus staff time from a number of organisations and individuals. My wish to retain positive relationships with these organisations is not a conflict of interest. I think I understand what North8000 is getting at in raising the point about environmental advocacy. The organisations with which you work/liaise/network are undoubtedly all well intentioned, you clearly have an enviable group of contacts, and you (and other Wikipedians) may believe passionately in what they do, but soliciting contributions from a particular group with which you are associated of necessity leads to their perspective and their work being foregrounded on Wikipedia—other organisations with which you do not happen to be associated or where you do not happen to have any personal contacts may be equally worthy. Unlike, for example, pointing out in a professional online forum that Wikipedia's coverage of a cutting-edge field is outdated, soliciting contributions from those you have a relationship with is a form of bias introduced by COI. The need to avoid bias—well intentioned or inadvertent bias included—is why we have a COI policy, as well as why we try hard to rely on independent sources (rather than on who we individually may consider the leading scientist / group / theorist in a field). Regardless of whether you are being paid, or have been paid in the past, advocacy and facilitating contributions from a particular group / organisation is a COI, and in my understanding of the COI policy, should stop. That's a distinct issue from the topic ban and a matter of general policy and practice under NPOV. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording I solicit contributions from etc. sounds a bit suspicious but it's nothing fancy, really. During the 4 years of the Formas project we (we had a little team) contacted all sorts of academics (not a "pre-select group"). Whoever was willing to work with us, and help us improve Wikipedia articles on climate change topics was welcome. In total, we probably contacted over a hundred scientists, for example some that were part of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. I knew none of these scientists beforehand, and had no professional or COI relationship with them. They were complete strangers to me, and my e-mails to them were cold call e-mails (and often went unanswered for that reason). When they did reply, we were happy and used their inputs for inspiration - not usually adding it word for word but copy editing as necessary (and in some cases we were unable to use their inputs, e.g. if they had copied a paragraph from one of their books but it wasn't compatibly licenced). (there was one exception: I knew Linda Strande beforehand from my work on sanitation during 2008-2012; she was one of our experts from Phase 1 in 2020 to 2022.)

Our original intention was for them to edit Wikipedia themselves but hardly anyone ever did... (too difficult). We were already happy if someone took up a Wikipedia login and wrote something on the talk page. As per WP:EXPERT, experts are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.

For example, these were the people who collaborated with us in Phase 2 of the Formas project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/SDGs/Communication_of_environment_SDGs#Content_experts .

To give you one example, Tim Jickells is a retired oceanographer professor at a university in the UK. He helped us greatly with the ocean article, simply for the benefit of the general public (he did not get paid for it). It's all documented on the talk pages of the articles (or the edit summaries) as well when we received expert inputs. I would say this was a great way of working. You can also see here some inputs by Kevin Trenberth which I copied to the talk page of the SRM article, after I contacted him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#Inputs_by_climate_scientist_Kevin_Trenberth . This is not canvassing, it's simply inviting scientists and experts to contribute to Wikipedia articles and to make them better (we used a scoring system to assess how the quality of the articles improved).

For the same reason, I also recently joined the Science Communication Network that was started at Uni Innsbruck.

I am pinging User:sadads in case they have time to comment because he followed my work during my Formas project (loosely) and he said my method of working with content experts was generally fine.

I guess all this probably doesn't belong here. We could discuss this further on my talk page if you or others are interested (or if you have concerns about it). Or continue here if you think it's related to this AN/I thread. EMsmile (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I think editors should generally feel free to talk about Wikipedia with the people in their lives. As has been mentioned before in this conversation, the first rule of Fight Club is not Wikipedia policy. What matters is the content and the intent of the outreach. Is the outreach encouraging NPOV or biased editing? Is it done with an intent to bring intellectual diversity and expertise into the community or is the intent to bring in a particular POV? From what I've seen in climate topics, EMsmile's outreach has generally been done with the intent of bringing in expertise. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

(Only) with the additional provision "automatically expires in 3 years" I'd support the proposal at the top of this thread. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

In the interests of trying to let this discussion close as soon as possible, I would be OK with this. But please be aware that if she writes a COI draft and you move it to mainspace, it will look really bad. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• To be clear, I support a topic ban and prefer Clayoquot's revised wording (21:01, 26 February 2025) as maximally clear. I don't consider a sunset provision as proposed by North8000 above to be desirable; better for EMsmile to demonstrate useful editing adhering to the topic ban and to good practice on COI, and then appeal on that basis. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts are for the three year sunset provision are: 1. The particular items of the proposed ban will all be moot by then. 2. Don't want to lose a good editor by having either an unfair eternal scarlet letter or else go though a painful drama fest to get rid of that, and a "when did you stop beating your wife?" innuendo one at that. A 60k + edits long time editor, who (if you look at their user page which thoroughly gets into that) strives to do the fraction which is their PE work well and openly, and who's PE work appears to be mostly or all on environmental and "human condition" topics. 3. I've consistently said over the years that a part of why we have too many undeclared PE's is that we are far too rough on and nasty to declared PE's. 4. The way these ANI type events often happen is that a portion of the participants just go by the assessments of other participants rather than doing at least partial depth review of the actual editing. This happens even with good intentions and is part of what makes Wikipedia such a nasty place that makes good editors leave. (Even well-intentioned at best, we're "rough and tumble" environment and my theory is that is part of why we are so imbalanced on female vs. male editors.) I didn't do an in-depth review but did what I'd call a medium depth look and IMO the issues were minor at worst. After my interaction in August was recently noted I just looked back in more detail (again, I review about 3,000 article reviews per year so this was ~1,500 articles back and I had to look back vs. remembering it.) The PE editing arrangement was focused on the mission of the non-profit. They were on the fence about even making an article on one of the key academics in the organization.....what I wrote could be taken as encouraging them to continue on that. (and I think it was not a part of the PE arrangement?) Seeing thousands of "scores from the XYZ team's 2019 season" and resumes/CV's-on-lawyers type articles in our 14,000 + article backlog at new page patrol (wanna help there?) IMO the article on the individual from the non-profit is a real article, with real substantial useful content and a plus for Wikipedia and far more aligned with our article-existence standards than about half of the ones that get in. And again, the standards at that stage are "article existence" ones, not "article perfection" or quality issue ones. I don't consider any involuntary restrictions to be in order, and, combined with my other considerations described above, a 3 year sunset provision would help mitigate that, reduce the potential damage, and get this ani resolved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

North8000, I hope some other folks will weigh in, because whatever the background, you've wound up being very close to this issue, since you passed that COI article and as you admit, effectively encouraged EMsmile to create it. The thing is, while we all have our own moral and political stances, the project is to write a neutral encyclopaedia. No matter how worthy an organisation may be in our minds, Wikipedia is not for advocacy and the COI guidelines apply. The fact we all have our own biases is why they exist, in fact, and why they apply equally to non-profit organisations, and to non-monetary COI as well as editing for pay. EMsmile has not done a good job of declaring their paid editing in the past, there is no automatic right to edit for pay here, COI is COI regardless of our personal opinions, and as you know, notability of the topic doesn't exempt an article from any other criticisms. Also, the principle behind "Indefinite doesn't mean infinite" applies here: topic bans, like blocks, are not punishments analogous to prison sentences. EMsmile has lost my confidence that they can be trusted to follow best practices on COI, and judging by all the editors above arguing for a topic ban, that of many others too; if they can edit productively following the revises restrictions set out by Clayoquot, they will thereby demonstrate they can now be trusted, and can appeal and get the restrictions lifted long before 3 years. But I for one want to see that demonstration. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Well I said what I had to say including my rationale, and this post is just to clarify a few things in relation to your post. Regarding my own involvement, it has been at two stages. Initially last August (which I initially had forgotten about) and then more recently. Next, in my post I described my thought process overall and previously I described my article existence standards which are essentially the AFC criteria which in turn in essence those of Wikipedia as a whole. My involvement and actions were and are BECAUSE of those views and standards, NOT the reverse. Finally, I didn't say that the standards are different for environment / human condition motivations, but the stereotypical view of PE is to serve the financial interests of the payer, and I felt it was worth noting that that assumption/impression is not correct in this case. With my 14:27, 2 March 2025 post (combined with previous posts) I completed expressing my thoughts and rationale on this, so I can pretty much rest now. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Heavy bludgeoning

Despite being warned already, user Wikieditor662 continues to engage in heavy bludgeoning at Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr. (a protected and contentious article). On February 13th, Wikieditor662 started an RfC on removing the mention of RFK Jr as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence [28]. As that had already been discussed and settled, the RfC was promptly closed, but Wikieditor662 started yet another thread on the same topic just a few hours later [29]. Since then, Wikieditor662 has posted 24 additional comments mainly to challenge users who support keeping the consensus version [30]. User Moxy already warned Wikieditor662 about bludgeoning two days ago [31], but as the behaviour continues (13 additional comments since then), ANI seems the next step to deal with the issue. Jeppiz (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What the heck? I started an RfC because I thought the first sentence should potentially be changed (which many people agreed with me). The RfC was closed, which I argued was premature as it was done after only a few hours with like 3 votes, so someone else (not me) reopened it. I then posted comments trying to respond to counterarguments others were making and getting involved in discussions and potentially future solutions. After Moxy told me about the Bulging rule, I explained why I didn't agree, which if I remember correctly, they did not respond to my points about it. This "ANI" honestly feels more like an attempt to shut down opposing viewpoints rather than actually improving wikipedia. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with your opinion and you summarize the problem yourself: you do not agree with WP:BLUDGEONING and continue to ignore it. Your behaviour over the past few days is a textbook example of bludgeoning. That is the only issue here. Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, do you understand the basic principle of debate that repeating the same argument over and over and over again in slightly different ways does not make your point more persuasive, and that this behavior eventually becomes disruptive? The same with critiquing the comments of many editors who disagree with you. If you cannot accept these facts and moderate your conduct accordingly, then perhaps an editing restriction will be necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Different people made different arguments so I addressed these arguments accordingly, I don't understand the problem with that. I'm trying to seek solutions to the proposals in the RfCs, even if I don't agree with them (like the one about rfk jr), and I want to hear what people's different perspectives are and why they believe what they believe. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying I don't agree with the rule, I'm saying I don't agree with the accusation that my actions are related to this rule. I responded to different counterarguments, and some people were making mistakes (like not addressing whether it should be in the first sentence), so I tried to correct them or at least see where they're coming from. I have toned that down a bit though, since there's such a high number of people doing this. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If first Moxy, then I, and then Cullen328 all independently find that you are bludgeoning the discussion, it might be a good idea to listen. Again, nobody asks you to patrol the discussion to "correct" others. The fact that you continue both to insist that you do nothing wrong and insist in believing you should correct those with different views is exactly why we are here. Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm just confused... As far as I'm aware, I don't repeat the same arguments while ignoring counterarguments, but are you asking me to respond to less comments? I can do that, but I don't see a problem with responding to multiple problems, especially if different people bring up different points and I want to address those points. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, starting an RfC and then commenting on most/many comments made by those with a different view of one's own is seen bludgeoning on Wikipedia. Stepping back and letting the RfC run its course is the preferred action. Jeppiz (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

But if someone makes a counterargument, and you have a good rebuttal to their counterargument, shouldn't you say it to show the !voters more perspectives on the issue? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Your rebuttals aren't good, though. I ignored this because it was just a contrarian response without substance. Initiating an RfC doesn't mean the entire weight of the argument is on your shoulders to make. Let It Go, and let the process carry itself to its natural conclusion. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem was that your comment wasn't just a !vote, it was accusing me of breaking the rules, so I wanted to defend myself so I don't get into deeper trouble with these accusations. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Standard conduct in an RFC is to state your position and respond to any questions that are asked of you. Not to comment on every opinion you disagree with or try to correct other's remarks. That's left to assess by the RFC closer. You've stopped commenting, which is good. If you had continued, it's likely you would have been page blocked from the Talk page.

By the way, I don't think you are the only editor who is bludgeoning that discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I think it's better if people debate in the responses, but rules are rules, I guess. Anyway, do you know who the other people are who are being accused of this? Also, are we never allowed to respond unless they ask a question? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I like to think it more of a rule of thumb. Respond to one person on a thread, but if multiple people are making a similar argument, then you can create a single comment calling out the argument(s), not individuals, and their flaws. Conyo14 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense, except that "rule of thumb" would usually imply exceptions if I'm correct. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Idk how you gleamed the "if I'm correct" out of that. Just practice better group communication instead of arguing under every !vote or comment. It's not difficult. Conyo14 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Reasonable exceptions sure. But your actions here are clearly very very far from reasonable. Nil Einne (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

If you say so... Btw, the fact you posted this at exatly 00:00 / 20 / 2025 is pretty cool. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not just me, pretty much every experienced editor agrees your behaviour here has been terrible. Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

-:( Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, you haven't even been editing for a year. That makes you still a new editor in my book. I've been editing since 2013 and I still have editors coming to my user talk page correcting me about something they think I did wrong. Sometimes, I agree, other times not. Wikipedia is a self-corrective project which means your edits can be reverted, other editors can vigorously disagree with your arguments, consensus goes against what you think is right, hey what passes for "democracy" can often get ugly. The best advice I can offer is to listen to criticism, adapt your behavior if the other editor is correct, don't take it personally unless the other editor is making it personal (in their comments, not in their critique) and try to do better the next time. That's all any of us can do, no matter how long we've been on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Gonna add my two cents as someone who was involved with the RfCs, and thankfully avoided most of the personal attacks.

I think Wikieditor662's editing style is pretty classic WP:BLUDGEON. On both the Kash Patel and RFK pages, the pattern of behavior is troubling - they make a contentious edit, then make a poorly formed RfC to get that edit back in. During those RfCs, they were initially replying to nearly every argument against their position. As expected, a lot of feathers are ruffled, and editors are angered. These RfCs are made, as far as I can tell, relatively recently after a previous consensus is established. I don't think this is bad faith, but it is incredibly poor form. I sadly suspect their RfC's will not be the last word. There is already a reopen request for one of them. Thankfully, the bludgeoning has seemed to stop, but the poor form hasn't.

They seem to wear that behavior as a badge of honor. The RfC for Kash Patel is listed as a "notable action," along with an essay they think a fellow editor wrote about them. Again, I don't believe it's bad faith, but incredibly poor form. I would not brag about a scolding essay written with me in mind, nor would I publicly assume it's about me! I also would not brag about an RfC that is a hot mess. Maybe a WHACK is in order.

My suggestions to @Wikieditor662 would be following:

1. I would chill out a little on making contentious edits in the ledes of contentious figures where there is recently established consensus. Be more considerate of previous consensus.
2. Don't Wikilawyer in general and in RfCs in particular. In the RFK jr one... yeesh. RfCs should be neutral and open ended, not a policy lecture.

Carlp941 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by poor form? Also something being notable doesn't have to mean it's good. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The link to the essay and the commentary around it feels like WP:INDCRIT to me. If you think the essay is about you, I'd tell the creator that you think that.

Since the RfC listed is still contentious - it reads like bragging about "winning." fwiw I think it's fine to have that as a thing on your page, but maybe after the dust has settled so no one feels ruffled. Carlp941 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're talking about the WP:ELDERS essay, no, that's not criticism. If I wanted to criticize it I'd write my own counter essay.

As for the winning, it's not really about that, it's about the fact that one of my actions (the RfC) led to something notable, even if it was messy. But if you think I should still remove it, I can, but when do you think the "dust will settle" ? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It's your call! Like I said I think you're doing this all in good faith. Carlp941 (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add that Wikieditor662 was involved in another RfC on the Kash Patel page where he also attempted to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the article around the same time that he opened this current RfC on the RFK Jr. article. Wikieditor662 has since started a conversation on the Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States page attempting to remove the word "false" from it as well. Looking at Wikieditor662's edits, the overwhelming majority of them are talk page comments on highly contentious articles attempting to remove descriptions in the lead sentence. BootsED (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

So what? I think that there are many WP:CONTENTIOUS statements in first sentences, so when I see a problem, I bring it up. Is that supposed to be bad? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I just checked the deep state discussion. Wikieditor662 makes another comment ([32]) that is bludgeoning because it just repeats the their position. I’m loosing confidence that these are well intended mistakes. Dw31415 (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

this is starting to shake my belief in their good faith as well. almost all their edits and discussions are on contentious topics and stir up a storm. a WP:WHACK feels like it's in order. i repeat my advice given above to resist the urge to edit contentious topics, and work your wikipedia muscles on less contentious subjects to get the skills to navigate discussions. Carlp941 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Involved RFC Closures

• FWIW, the RFC-in-question should remain open for a month. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Wikieditor662 just closed the RFC in question, despite being the one who started it; this obviously violates WP:NACINV. They justify their closure by saying that they're closing it with the opposite result from what they wanted as the person who started it - but this isn't true; as they note at the end of their closure, I started a push for a moratorium in that RFC. They argue that it should be done separately, but as someone WP:INVOLVED, that isn't their call to make; they'd obviously be deeply opposed to a moratorium against a change they want to make to the article! --Aquillion (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  maybe we can just ask them to unclose the rfc? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  k, just asked on their user talk page User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Apparently they also closed a contentious RfC at Kash Patel despite being involved in that discussion. Some1 (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  And with basically the same rationale, I counted the !votes. I don't think an inexperienced and involved editor should be closing contentious topic RfCs. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  (Pinging users not already pinged at the necessary talk page: @Some1 @Isaidnoway) Thanks for bringing up this concern, it's currently being discussed at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#RfC closure. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Can you consider, as a show of good faith to other editors, unclosing these RFCs? Just re-open and let someone uninvolved, with more experience, close. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  W.r.t. your ping, the convo is here wikieditor.

  I think keeping these multiple involved closes after being asked by editors to unclose represents more of a behavioral issue (WP:IDNHT), and a break from the norms of the wikipedia than a content issue. ANI is the forum for such behavioral issues. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The RFCs should be reopened. Any further delay to do so by the closer, is quite problematic. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Wikieditor662, this is not a subject open to debate. If you are involved in a discussion, you shouldn't close the discussion, period. No exceptions accepted except for if no one has responded to the discussion yet (which is not the case here). Revert your closures if you haven't already done so. This could result in sanctions if you ignore editors on this point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  This is all starting to get disruptive..... basically we have an editor that spends their time on talk pages - being a timesick for others. Would love to see some focus on content creation, copy editing, etc that is geared towards helping our readers. Some time editing and learning the basics about article evolution might be helpful here. Moxy🍁 04:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  (Pinging relevant parties: @TimeToFixThis @Dw31415 @Bluethricecreamman @Some1 @Isaidnoway @Aquillion @Valjean @Moxy @Soibangla @ScottishFinnishRadish) The RfCs have been reopened (I was about to reopen, but I saw @GoodDay already did this. I did, however, revert the changes I made to the notices and main articles).

  How should we move forward from here; do you guys know anyone (like GoodDay) who's uninvolved and could close them? Or should we go to WP:CR? Or should we just keep them going? (Which I don't recommend because I don't think the discussions are gonna go anywhere, but it's an option).

  Either way, I apologize for the closure and I'll make sure to not close again when I'm involved, even if the results seem clear.

  Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Why are you anxious for these RFCs to be closed? Let them stay open for a full month. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, I think people's times are being wasted here and that we're not getting anywhere. Also, a month is usually the time it takes for the bot to decide that the RfC has been ongoing for too long and archives it. Of course that can be undone, but doesn't that say something? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Which bot do you mean? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Legobot. From WP:RFCEND: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the {{rfc}} tag) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that. If one of the reasons to end RfCs applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course. Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days, someone should delay Legobot's automatic action. This latter function is based on the first timestamp following the {{rfc}} tag. You can read the whole section for more. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

When Legobot performs its task (after a month), then a request for closure can be made. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

you may put in a request for an uninvolved editor to close on WP:Closure request after enough time has passed or if folks havent put in any additional responses in a while (i.e. a week) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman Do you think enough time as passed for the 2 RfCs? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

amount of time for RFCs with significant participation is usually 30 days total. try working on other stuff, there is WP:DEADLINE to finish this RFC User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay @Bluethricecreamman Alright, we can wait until 30 days, and then post to WP:CR if nobody has closed them yet. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• RFCs re-opened - As an uninvolved editor, I've re-opened the two RFCs-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just as a heads-up, I closed the Kash Patel RfC. I will leave the RFK Jr. one to someone else. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please unclose. I've included info in your talk page asking for you to revert your close. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

User TimeToFixThis

• I'd note that User:TimeToFixThis is also bludgeoning the various discussions on this page, and with this edit is suggesting to WikiEditor662 that they start yet another RfC on the page, presumably because they don't like the way this one is going. I also note that WikiEditor662 has made three more comments on the page since this ANI began. This really needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  You are misrepresenting my statement. This is a highly debated issue, and my comment was about the flaws in how the RfC was framed—not an attempt to start another one just because I don't like the outcome. The way it is currently worded forces a binary decision, which is part of the problem, and why we may not get a real consensus. Instead of a simple yes-or-no question on whether these terms should be kept or removed, a more neutral option would be to ask: if they are kept, should they appear in the first sentence or later in the lead to ensure a more balanced phrasing? Which several editors have supported.

  Your accusation of bludgeoning seems more like an attempt to shut down debate and discourse. Frankly, this kind of reporting—or tattling—feels silly. I have not excessively responded in the RfC—only once in support and once in disagreement. The only other times I have replied were when someone responded to me or mentioned me directly in the discussion section. My level of participation has been no greater than those arguing the other side, so this report is unwarranted. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 11:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Last sentence is admitting that you participated not much less than we62 is not. Helping •Cyberwolf•talk? 13:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know how you would come to that conclusion from I said. Feel free to verify my claim in the RfC. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 14:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  You wrote I suggest we either start a new RfC or adjust the current one to better reflect the discussion.. If you had genuine concerns about "how the RfC was framed", the time to express those concerns to the initiator would have been five days ago when the RfC was started, instead of waiting until after 30+ people have already replied to the original question asked. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  My whole goal is to establish neutrality. Personally, I don’t believe "conspiracy theorist" belongs in the lead sentence per WP:NPOV, but I understand if others disagree. However, this discussion seems redundant because the core issue—the reason this debate started—is a neutrality concern, not just whether the term should be included.

  The real question shouldn’t be “Should we include it?” but rather “Do we support the current wording, or should it be adjusted to sound more neutral?” For example, instead of outright labeling him a "conspiracy theorist," we could rephrase it in the second sentence: He is known for his activism, including his controversial views on vaccines and public health. This keeps the controversy in the lead without engaging in character assassination by stating as fact that he is a conspiracy theorist—an inherently loaded term that many reliable sources treat with nuance.

  This discussion feels unproductive because most people agree these aspects should be mentioned, but some also recognize the current wording could be revised. I’m just trying to help offer solutions. Unfortunately, we also have some people here with clear agendas who are unwilling to engage in a good-faith discussion, such as this comment: Support It is absolutely true. It is unfortunate that you can't say he is anti-human, which he effectively is. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 14:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Again, if you had concerns about what the "real question should have been", you should have expressed those concerns five days ago to the initiator, instead of waiting until 30+ people replied to the original question. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  You are correct, but what is your point. Why I am on the administrators' noticeboard? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 15:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  My point is there is not going to be a new RfC or an adjustment to the current one. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite my last 3 comments on that page were responding to questions or concerns in already established threads, which the administrator @Liz said is okay: Standard conduct in an RFC is to state your position and respond to any questions that are asked of you.

  As for @TimeToFixThis, I think they have good intentions. A problem is that most of the people accusing of bludgeoning are on the opposite side of the vote, and even if the criticism is valid, it's harder to hear because the accuser is biased. If a neutral administrator finds Time's behavior inappropriate, I would at least recommend a warning first, as I think there's a good chance they will stop if one is given.

  Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• TimeToFixThis, your recent history at RFK Junior is certainly not constructive. How do you explain this edit from today [33]? You marked that edit as minor. The most lenient interpretation is that you do not understand what a minor edit means at Wikipedia, which is already somewhat problematic. I recommend you to read WP:MINOR. Per definition, if anyone might disagree with the content of the edit, it is not a minor edit. Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• To expand on the above, the actions of User:TimeToFixThis already seem enough to warrant action. Even after this discussion was started, TimeToFixThis went to the article on RFK Junior to do multiple changes, marked as minor including

• - Changing that RFK has "promoted vaccine misinformation" to saying he has "been a prominent critic of vaccines" and "has been accused of spreading vaccine misinformation"
• - Deleting "proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation"
• - Changing "anti-vaccine advocacy" to "opposes vaccine mandates and raises concerns about pharmaceutical industry practices"

It goes without saying that these are not minor changes. This is disruptive editing. That TimeToFixThis does this even as this discussion is ongoing strongly suggests the user is either unable or unwilling to contribute to Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As per my above statement responding to @Isaidnoway that wording violates WP:NPOV. I did not remove anything, I expanded on the context for readability. "promoted vaccine misinformation" to saying he has "been a prominent critic of vaccines" and "has been accused of spreading vaccine misinformation" is more honest to the real situation why acknowledging the controversy. It was a minor adjustment so I listed it as such. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 15:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Since 2005, Kennedy has promoted vaccine misinformation is neutral and succinct. Since 2005, Kennedy has been a prominent critic of vaccines and public health policies, arguing that they pose risks that are often overlooked. He has been accused of spreading vaccine misinformation is overly wordy and adds some WP:FALSEBALANCE by suggesting it's just some unnamed others accusing him of spreading vaccine misinformation. Not a good edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:MINOR, there are only a few types of edits one should mark as "minor" - changing the meaning of content as you did is not one of them. I'm also a little concerned about this being marked as a "readability fix", when it changed the meaning of already perfectly readable content. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

TimeToFixThis, it was not a minor edit. That is not a matter of discussion, see WP:MINOR. Your refusal to acknowledge it only adds to the problem. Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I admit my mistake in listing it as a minor edit. I perceived it as such because it seemed like a small thing that gave context to an already exciting statement and would help for readers of the article. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 15:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Not only was it not minor, but it changed a sourced sentence to one which is effectively unsourced. He hasn't been "accused of spreading vaccine misinformation", he has spread it, and that is impeccably sourced. This is simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm also a bit concerned about this edit which collapses what appears to be an WP:RFCBEFORE conversation saying it's obsolete because the RfC has started. Between some of the FALSEBALANCE concerns cited above, the issues over WP:MINOR and this I'm wondering if we're in WP:CIR territory. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Right. You shouldn't WP:CLOSE discussions where you are involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I started that conversation, and then an RfC began after. I only added a collapse on it so people would not get confused with the two discussions. It is still there and people can still see it. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 15:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, you started it. Therefore it's inappropriate for you to collapse or close it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

user has 1000 edits and has been editting for over a year... not quite a newbie, but WP:BITE might override WP:CIR, especially if TimeToFixThis takes advice and uncloses. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• They also have the template {{User 2farleft}} on their userpage, which caught my attention - is that an appropriate user template? It seems like a pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND declaration and would appear to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. --Aquillion (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Why does such a template even exist? Cortador (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Whether the template should be removed is being discussed on its' talk page, you can bring your thoughts there if you'd like. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  We still have editors that have userboxes supporting, obliquely, Hezbollah. So this one sems a bit mild in comparison. Zaathras (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikieditor and WP:TEND editing around Misogyny and other articles

saw this and thought I'd add in what I'd seen around the misogyny article as well. I'll add another notice to wikieditor's talk page to notify him of this as well.

• Wikieditor has been engaging in WP:TEND editting around introduction of misandry wording in the misogyny article as well.
• Wikieditor had previously been attempting to push for the change on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_104#Misandry in January 13th or so. I'm counting 14 out of 41 replies there, 1400 words out of 3200 words.
• In february, Wikieditor starts again. 14 out of the 46 replies, 1000 of the 2700 words in Talk:Misogyny#Misandry are from wikieditor.
• Suggested to wikieditor this situation was approaching WP:TEND here [34]
• His account seems very new, and in general eager. Would like a warning to not do TEND and BLUDGEON and all that. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Closing

Can an admin just close with a warning? Folks are bringing up more behavior, but this is getting unwieldy. if this continues afterwards, maybe a new, more focused, thread could be useful, with this thread as info of past behavior. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs)

User DACartman repeatedly reverting sourced updates under false COI claims

Hello administrators,

I would like to report an issue regarding the article Pryazovskyi State Technical University involving user DACartman, who has repeatedly reverted sourced updates without discussion and falsely claimed "conflict of interest" (COI) as justification.

Issue Summary: The previous version of the article contained outdated and incorrect information, including: An incorrect rector's name. An incorrect university location (Mariupol instead of Dnipro). A misleading photo, which may imply that the university is no longer operational. I updated the article with accurate, well-sourced information, including: The correct rector (Olena Khadzhynova). The university's relocation to Dnipro. A new photo that represents the university's current status.

These updates are based on verifiable and reliable sources, including: Official website of the university Ministry of Education directive University rankings Rector election announcement

Disruptive Actions by DACartman:

Reverted the updates multiple times without discussion or justification. Falsely accused me of a conflict of interest (COI) despite my edits being fully sourced. Ignored my request for discussion on the Talk page, where I waited over three weeks for a response. Continued edit warring instead of providing counter-sources or engaging in discussion.

Clarification Regarding COI: I acknowledge that I have an affiliation with the university, but Wikipedia’s COI policy does not prohibit fact-based contributions when properly sourced. All my edits are based on verifiable, third-party sources and do not promote the institution.

If necessary, I am willing to propose changes on the Talk page instead of direct editing to ensure neutrality. However, this does not justify mass reversion of sourced edits without discussion.

Links to relevant diffs:

My edit with sourced updates → [35] Reversion by DACartman without explanation → [36] My attempt to restore correct info → [37] Another unjustified reversion by DACartman → [38] My unanswered message on the Talk page (over 1 month ago) → [39]

Request for Administrator Intervention: I kindly request administrator intervention to:

Review the edit history and evaluate whether DACartman’s reverts are justified. Determine whether DACartman’s actions constitute disruptive editing or an abuse of COI policy. Ensure that Wikipedia policies are followed, preventing mass reverts of properly sourced updates without discussion. Provide guidance or a formal warning to prevent further unjustified reversions. I am open to discussion and willing to collaborate with other editors to ensure accuracy and neutrality.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Sincerely, Cct123123

DACartman, please communicate, both here and at the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I would, but I was sleeping and was not aware until now. DACartman (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean you had to wake up immediately! In the next couple of days will do fine. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I have undone the revert on my behalf DACartman (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick comment: Cct123123 (talk · contribs) may have a conflict of interest with the university in Mariupol, see their user talk page. Also, this response seems incredibly LLM-generated. Having a COI means you really shouldn't edit the conflicted area, even if you're only using third-party sources. You also seem to be using primary sources (including announcements / press releases and .ua domains) to back up the contentious claims. Departure– (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: I indented this weirdly. This wasn't meant for anyone replying. I haven't fully checked everything to see exactly what's going on but the username situation on the reporting user's page is a big red flag to me. Departure– (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

A couple of responses to the quick comments. Firstly, it seems obvious to me that this message is LLM-generated. In fact it was so obvious that I didn't bother mentioning it before. Cct123123 has already offered to edit via talk page requests. And what claims are contentious? Having a conflict of interest, or the sources being primary, doesn't make everyone an evil spammer (although I know some are). Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's a spammer here, I'm using "contentious" for lack of a better word. I mean "claims in an area in which one has a COI". I got the impression, as well, that the claims are being contended on the article's talk page etc, seeing as it got to ANI. Again, I haven't seen all of the diffs and I'm just a driveby commentor giving my input. Departure– (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger I appreciate your feedback. My only goal is to make the article accurate and well researched, and I am happy to work through requests on the Talk page to make sure everything is in line with Wikipedia's rules. If any sources need to be replaced, I am open to suggestions. Thank you! Cct123123 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cct123123 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal

DACartmen has posted on their user page that they going on a month-long Wikibreak. I'm not sure if that was something they had already been intending to do or directly a result of this ANI discussion. DACartmen has identified themselves as being a student on their user page; so, they could just be busy with school of other things. Regardless, the timing of the Wikibreak might mean they won't be responding here anymore or at least for the time being.

Personally, I think DACartmen probably means well, but they've also demonstrated a lack of understanding of WP:COI and how it's intended to be applied. I've pointed this out to them several times before on their user talk page, but still don't quite seem to get it; so, I don't think the incident reported above should be treated as an isolated case or one-time mistake. Moreover, while I understand the tendency of some Wikipedians to see all COI editing as bad, WP:COI isn't policy, and it only highly discourages COI editing. Many COI editors are new to Wikipedia and mean well, but just make mistakes that lots of new editors make regardless of any COI. For this reason, a more nuanced approach is sometimes needed since going in and automatically reverting everything just because COI is suspected regardless of the quality of the edit being made can be counterproductive.

Although DACartman seems to have made lots of good edits over the years, sometimes his interactions with others and attempts to "explain" things to them are more off target than on, There are several examples of this found on their user talk page or in their contribution's history, but the following three are recent ones that I feel illustrate this point pretty well.

1. The first example is of DACartman reverting a suspected COI editor here for adding unsourced information to an article about a high school. When the editor posts on DACartman's user talk page asking why and explains the information can be found on the high school's official website, DACartman posts that conflict of interest policy forbids students from editing about their schools, but that it would be OK for him to re-add the information in his name because he's not a student at the school. DACartman then undoes their revert and makes the exact same edit that they reverted COI editor for making because it was unsourced. This seems to me to be reverting simply for the sake a reverting and doesn't really make much Wikipedia sense.
2. The second example has to do with DACartman's unexplained removal of what looks like an OK post from another user's user talk page. The user whose post was removed actually appears to have been randomly assigned to be the mentee of the other user by WP:GTF mentorship feature. Anyway, DACartman was asked about the removal at User talk:DACartman#Can't tell why this comment was removed, but never responded. I can't say for sure, but I think the removal might've been related to User talk:TanieAugust#Managing a conflict of interest. DACartmen did subsequently restore the post to the other user's user talk page, but it's not clear why they thought it should be removed to begin with. Again, this seems to be misunderstanding not only of WP:COI, but also of WP:TPO.
3. The other example has to do with DACartman's reverting of an image added by some suspected of having a COI with here and then again here. When asked about this at User talk:DACartman#Sarah Rafferty Wikipedia page, DACartman gave a reasonable answer, but didn't seem aware that adding images to article is one of things COI editors are encouraged to do per WP:COI#Supplying photographs and media files. It turns out the that image had permission issues; so, I removed it myself after it was re-added back again, but that had nothing really to do with anyone having a COI or their choice of username.

All of the above are perhaps minor in isolation, but combined together with the various warnings/suggestions to be more careful (not just on COI related matters) added to DACartman's user talk page by others over the years seem to indicate that DACartman might need to step away from Wikipedia-related "enforcement" stuff and find some other things to do for awhile. DACartman's declaration of that they "get rid of COI edits in my little free time during school" could mean they're pressing a bit and not willing to spend as much time assessing things as they probably should. They also seemt (at least in my opinion) too reliant on scripts/tools, perhaps to try and help them make the most of this free time, but don't seem to realize the responsibility that goes along with using such things.

FWIW, DCartman did send me an unsolicited email message a day or so ago stating they understood they were wrong and also requesting they be blocked for 12 hours; they asked me to forward their request on to an admin, which I guess is what I'm doing now. To me, though, a 12-hour block seems sort of pointless to begin with but makes even less sense when you're on a month-long Wikibreak. At the same time, I'm not sure a longer block is warranted since at this point it seems more punitive than preventive. Perhaps the best solution here would be to a sort of T-ban which temporarily restricts DACartman's ability to use scripts and other tools, and also their ability to deal with COI concerns. Plenty of users edit fine without using scripts or tools, and serious concerns about COI stuff could always be reported to WP:AN or WP:COIN. Perhaps a period of six months or so would be enough time for DACartman to demonstrate to the community that they've learned from their mistakes and won't be repeating them. DACartman would still be able to edit; they'll just need to figure out other ways to WP:CONTRIBUTE that don't involve reverting and warning others, at least not without a rock-solid policy-based reason for doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I think at minimum, DAC shouldn't be allowed to interact with editors that they perceive as having a COI. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Mauls and edit summaries

Mauls never seems to use edit summaries much, despite being asked to numerous times (eg: here, here, here and here). To avoid sounding like a broken record, could somebody else have a word? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

One possible approach (maybe won't work now that there's an ANI thread that might get their back up) would be to ask them why they don't, rather than tell them to (with a pretty patronizing template). From an admittedly quick glance, it seems like a reasonable edit summary for most of their edits would be "useful gnoming" or "useful fixing refs". Not sure why this is a problem, unless it's just "rules are rules"? Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

A fair comment, except I notice they've been asked before why they don't, but with no answer. The principal reason it annoys me (and I mean for any user that does this) is documented in my essay. |Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not about rules per se - edit summaries are there to help other editors know what the edit did. If I'm looking through a page history or at my watchlist, it's exceedingly helpful for there to be a couple of words stating what the edit entailed - even if it's something like "ref fix" or "fix template" - two words that say an awful lot. But blank edit summaries are completely useless. Summaries take seconds to add, and in my personal opinion not adding them is a) lazy and b) disparaging to other editors who look at edits. I accept this is a harsh viewpoint, but those are my feelings. Of course there are occasions where an edit summary simply isn't needed - for example if you're reverting blatant vandalism... but I don't think there's many occasions. Danners430 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Lazy and disparaging? Yikes. That seems kind of ruder than a lack of edit summaries. I accept this is a harsh viewpoint, but those are my feelings. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I want to be clear, I’m not targeting any specific user when I state this. I acknowledge it’s in a thread about one user, but I’m commenting broadly - not specifically about this one user. If there’s a consensus that my viewpoint is too harsh, I’m happy to retract those words… but that is my viewpoint on the matter.

On the subject of the user in question however, I feel the fact that the user almost never acknowledges or responds to any queries on their talk page is just as concerning - they do occasionally respond, but for example each and every one of the edit summary reminders linked above were summarily ignored. Surely an experienced editor such as Mauls should know firstly that communication is required, and know about edit summaries? Danners430 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I've had a couple of pretty patronising messages with I've not engaged with - I'm not sure what response you both wanted from barking orders at me? It came across like trying to start an argument, so I didn't bite. Mauls (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Four messages about edit summaries? I fully understand not engaging with messages, and indeed I support that. But then why are you still refusing to use edit summaries? Danners430 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't just the four messages, it was also being simultaneously on one of those being tagged into a rant about editors not using edit summaries, which sort of makes it hard to assume good faith.

But since you ask why, it's because mentally I really struggle to come up with any sort of meaningful or useful edit summary on the vast majority of my edits. They are either very minor tidying edits (fixing a capital letter or punctuation), or a large collection of disparate small fixes that would need an entire essay writing to accurately reflect. Mauls (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Would it not then make sense to just use a single word or two words - such as “spelling” or “grammar”? That covers both of the first two you mention, and the general fixes could simply be “small fixes” - I’m not meaning this to be a dig, genuinely trying to make helpful suggestions :) Danners430 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you still with us, Mauls? Danners430 (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted though that recently Mauls has done what was suggested and has started adding brief edit summaries to his edits - just a couple of words, but that’s more than enough to briefly describe what’s been done :) Danners430 (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

If that’s enough to suffice, then I’ll do that - but it doesn’t seem to me to be enough to be much help to anyone. Mauls (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a very quick look through your recent edits yield summaries such as “ce” (copy edit), “link” (adding a link), “typo” (fixing a typo), “cite” (adding or fixing a cite), “act title in full” (expanding a shortened title) - that sort of stuff is infinitely better than no edit summary at all, and at a glance an editor at the very least has a good idea of what the edit was and what was changed. Personally I would be of the opinion that it suffices :) Danners430 (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

They are not patronising or barking orders. Please assume good faith. They are trying to work out why you don't leave edit summaries very often to help other people understand your work, and you still haven't answered that question. I also have seen you getting into arguments with Redrose64 and DuncanHill over seemingly trivial matters, can you explain these? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mauls are we going to be graced by an answer at some point? Apologies for pressing, I'm primarily ensuring the thread doesn't get inadvertedly archived Danners430 (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

IP blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello dear Wikimedians.

I am writing to ask for your help regarding an IP block. It is about a participant in our campaign Peruvian women scientists in Wikipedia, who has a partial block. We would like to know the process to remove the block. She is a novice volunteer editor, who is being trained to edit on the platform. I remain attentive and thank you in advance.

• Campaign page in meta.
• User's name: Sumak98
• IP: 190.236.75.1

Translated with DeepL.com (free version) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhhue91 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The IP address 190.236.75.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is rangeblocked from the pages 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. This does not prevent the editing of biographies of Peruvian scientists. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I am missing something here. User:Sumak98 is not registered on en.wiki. They do have one edit on es.wiki. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess yes: the IP block is ACB for the whole /16, which is a common mistake for partial blocks. Ping @Black Kite: -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yhhue91 and Sumak98: I've created the account on this wiki, so they should be good to go. Hopefully Black Kite will turn up so we can address the other issues with this block. To other admins, please be aware of this common mistake. With a partial block you probably don't want to disallow account creation. Partial blocks can be huge and account creation is prevented from the whole range if this option is left ticked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, zzuuzz. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Zzuuzz thanks for helping us with this. Indeed, the user wasn't able to create an account on en.wiki due to the partial block. Can I reach out to you in case of new IP blocks from our students? Yhhue91 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yhhue91: Per the comment below, this should be fixed. However, you're welcome to get in touch if something similar happens again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Hi - I have removed the account creation block from this IP range. ACB was deliberate, because the vandal that the block was intended to deter was creating "throwaway" accounts to continue their activity. Hopefully they have long been deterred anyway, but I don't have any issue removing this now. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:LEGAL in edit summaries at Seth Tobias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Seth Tobias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• [40] "So the facts are it was a wrongful civil lawsuit not factual ... so all this writing it wrong on the facts and the family has contacted they're attorneys and they are filing a claim so please act and govern accordingly"
• [41] "So I spoke to family attorneys and they are ready to file a lawsuit to put a final Stop to this craziness"
• [42] "You cannot accuse. Anyone of murder that is a salacious light and if it's not taken down permanently, there will be a lawsuit pending"

From User:MRBIG917 and User:164.68.133.227 (possibly said user logged out?). Looks like LTs to me, MRBIG917 has already been given a NLT warning but seems to have continued. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

MRBIG917 has been indeffed by ScottishFinnishRadish. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Padgriffin and Star Mississippi: Do please keep in mind WP:DOLT. I've just removed multiple BLP violations from the section the users were trying to remove. As written, the prose implied that there was a colorable case against the widow, when in reality—per the sources cited—the plaintiffs retracted their claims, which originated from a convicted felon who had been the widow's online psychic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I looked into the page history and it's even worse than what I removed. I've deleted several revisions as BLP violations, including not one but two cases in which an experienced editor restored allegations of murder against a living person, which were cited to a source that said the person was cleared. @R0paire-wiki and VolatileAnomaly: Please be much more careful in the future. (But, VolatileAnomaly, I do appreciate you got it right the second time around.) There's also obvious socking going on here by the accounts that kept adding this. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VerityHarper99. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks @Tamzin: for flagging and feel free to reopen the thread so this stays together. Also pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish: who blocked the account as a heads up. Star Mississippi 13:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  full disclosure, I just AfDed. I don't see enough there to keep. Star Mississippi 13:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  And I have CSD-ed the image on commmons. – robertsky (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  I took a brief look at the sources, but it was late and I probably didn't give it enough attention. I was pretty close to removing it, but figured someone more awake would pick up my slack. Thanks Tamzin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi @ScottishFinnishRadish: I know there was discussion at some point in the past few years about amending WP:NLT to prioritize assessing the grounds for the legal threat alongside whatever blocks might be made—basically, at least partly promoting WP:DOLT to policy. Maybe that idea should be revisited, because in a situation like this—one admin blocks expecting the other half will be looked into, a second protects without addressing the BLP issues or rival socking, and a third closes the thread—we wind up with the more problematic conduct falling through the cracks, while blocking someone who, you know, had pretty good reason to be pissed at us, even if they do need to be blocked until they retract the threats. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  I did check the content and sources and I think in this situation, on just the content, it was a judgement call. What I saw dealt with a civil case that was heavily covered in quality sources. I didn't make note of the socking at the time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm sorry, you know I think you're a great admin, but I don't think that is a reasonable assessment of the content I removed. Let's compare:

  • Per the sources cited: A man died; his widow stood to inherit; a convicted felon who knew his widow made unsubstantiated allegations of murder; and his brothers (who would inherit otherwise) sued to disqualify her under the slayer rule, which they then retracted under a settlement.
  • Per a source not cited in the version you looked at, but referenced here for completeness: His widow was cleared in a criminal investigation
  • The article, even in the version with the most blatant defamation removed: One sentence on his death; one on a lawsuit being filed (no mention that it was an inheritance case); two on unsubstantiated allegations made in the lawsuit that, if true, would strongly imply murder; and then the statement that the suit settled with "no formal admission of liability", which carries the exact opposite implication of it settling with a retraction by the plaintiffs.

  That is a thorough BLP violation, the sort we'd block or TBAN someone for (if I hadn't already blocked them all for socking). It's probably not outright defamation, but I don't know, I'm not a lawyer and defamation-by-implication does exist, and U.S. defamation law is much more sympathetic to non-public figures. I'm totally prepared to accept that you just missed the socking and didn't look close enough at the sources, don't get me wrong, SFR; and I don't mind that at all, because we all make mistakes and in general you're one of our best admins on BLP issues. But if you're looking at the sources now and not seeing why this was so egregious, I think you're not looking closely enough. I'll refer broadly to my admittedly provocatively-titled User:Tamzin/Wikipedia is a lambskin condom, regarding our weakness when it comes to this kind of high-impact but less-obvious error. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'll certainly eat the L on this. As I said I took a brief look, including at some sources not in the article, e.g. this NYT piece to see if It was something flagrantly incorrect but I didn't look too in-depth, and then I went to bed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  As will I. As a newer editor compared to the admins present, it's sometimes hard to spot such relatively subtle BLP violations that aren't readily apparent from a cursory glance of the sources. I'm ashamed to admit that it only caught my attention because the editor made the legal threat. Just wanted to thank you, Tamzin, for your vigilance, and I will be sure to do a thorough vetting of BLP sources for every edit going forward. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 02:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Tamzin sorry for delay, offline much of day. I agree re: a discussion about relooking at DOLT/NLT. Any particular place you suggest for the discussion? cc @ScottishFinnishRadish Star Mississippi 00:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I’m looking at this and yeah, I definitely fell victim to WP:DOLT- I noticed the LT and socking going on and reverted it, and didn’t check the source. Thanks Tamzin for keeping an eye out for stuff like this, it was relatively subtle and I just ended up overlooking it. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LukeWiller

I have concerns with LukeWiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and refusal to communicate when concerns have been raised. Since December at least he has been attempting to insert a whole section on Italians to the American Revolution article and associated pages. See edits to the AR page from December 4 December 5 December 6 December 6 again December 22 and today. He's attempted to do the same at American Revolutionary War as well, among others. See [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. Because many of this edits (and others I'm omitting to keep this brief) related to Filippo Mazzei, I sent Luke a note in December but never got a response.

Aside from the Revolutionary War stuff, Luke copies and pastes whole sections from one article to another without bothering to prune or keep in considerations things like weight. See these edits at National flag [48] or these at flag protocol [49] both from January. I sent Luke a separate note about that, and go no response this time either. Today, he reinserted the same content I attempted to remove from the former article [50]. See also the history rail transport in Europe where he has copied and pasted 24,000 bytes of text from other articles and Italian diaspora, where he's copied and pasted 29,000 bytes. In both cases, editors tried to trim back or remove his edits, but reverted them today. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jessintime, has there been any discussion of these additions on an article talk page or other noticeboard? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Not at the talk pages of the articles I mentioned. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Rather than let this report languish, I should add that Luke's behavior has been repeated on more contentious articles related to fascism. At anti-fascism Luke removed a whole section related to Italy in January [51]. This was reverted by me because I felt the explanation of "off-topic" was insufficient. Well yesterday, when he was making the other edits mentioned above, Luke removed it again because it's "anti-Italianism". At Fascism and ideology, he's repeatedly replaced an image of a prisoner at an Italian concentration camp with image that seems to underplay the significance of the concentration camp. The edit summaries for swapping that image include more generic image and Restored information with reliable source. He edited the page again yesterday to remove the image, and made several other wholesale changes [52]. 17:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessintime (talk • contribs)

Yes, in my opinion my contributions are valid and made in good faith. In my opinion it is a simple edit war by two users with a different vision of the topic. LukeWiller (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@LukeWiller: also in my opinion your contributions are valid and made in good faith. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Disputes about article content are resolved by discussion on talk pages, not by edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a dispute between two editors. Three editors, including me, have removed the content you've been trying to include at the American Revolution article. And while I expressed concerns above about the fascism and ideology page, I haven't edited that page. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

A similar problem with @LukeWiller exists in several articles related to Dalmatia, Istria and Croatia in general, where he publishes manipulative and at the very least pro-Italian writings, as well as false information that is not supported by sources. For example that in Dalmatia, in the first half of the 19th century, Italians made up between 20% and 33% of the population, although the Dalmatian Italians themselves, such as Francesco Carrara and Niccolo Tommaseo, estimated the percentage of Italians at that time to be around 4%... Also the arbitrary interpretation that Italians in Istria "for centuries were over 50% of the population". He does not want to participate in the discussion at all, and he cites any form of correction of his incorrect statements as harassment or anti-Italian activity. The wikipedia authorities should address this issue. Visaches 37 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect draftifications by User:NenChemist

User:NenChemist has incorrectly draftified / nominated for speedy too many articles. I have reverted a number of the most recent ones (e.g. Torrie Allen, Michael Buxton, Wheere, My Green Doctor). They were warned about poor draftifications in 2022 (User talk:NenChemist#Draftify) after which they stopped editing until last week. They were immediately warned again (User talk:NenChemist#Please be careful about draftification of academics, but the problems clearly persist so perhaps it is time to give them a formal topic ban from all draftifications and speedy deletion nominations (they e.g. gave Tiffany Lau a G1 nomination today). Fram (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I am going to second this, since I left the warning earlier this week; I was seconding concerns on this behavior on User Talk:NenChemist as Fram was typing this, so slight duplication of concerns. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hesitant to site block a 20 year old account, but they need to communicate, which they have not done.

I have p-blocked from article space and left a longer note on their Talk. Any admin may lift this if they feel issue is sufficiently resolved Star Mississippi 13:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Appropriate block. The account may have been created 20 years ago but was completely dormant for 15 years until 2021 followed by another 3 year hiatus. I was aware of this issue and had discussed it knowing it would land here eventually. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Fram, @Ldm1954, @Kudpung กุดผึ้ง and @Star, I understand your concerns that I moved the page to draft. This was due to COI and UPE issues I saw in these pages. I am sorry if I didn't explained properly about this. Based on recent draftifications, I can provide upe and coi issues articles below.

• The MEPCO (company) page was previously deleted under the name MEPCO by @Spicy.
• The My Green Doctor article was created by Donkeycandance, who failed to disclose paid editing despite being asked to do so by @Jay8g.
• The Wheere article was created by the company's founder, Jean-PierreCL.
• An AfD discussion was speedily closed as "Keep" by a UPE sock farm, despite having three delete votes.

I fully support the Wikimedia Foundation’s initiative to combat undisclosed paid editing, which is why I am simply trying to make improvements. NenChemist (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

That's nice but are you familiar with WP:DRAFTIFY and the guidelines it contains? Do you agree to abide by it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with WP:DRAFTIFY and the guidelines it contains. I fully agree to abide by them and will ensure that any draftifications I make align with Wikipedia’s policies and best practices. Also, the issue was my lack of transparency, which I will improve. If any other editor has questions, they can always talk to me directly on my talk page, and I will do my best to address their concerns. NenChemist (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Given the primary issue was a lack of communication, and @NenChemist has addressed that and indicated they will change course, I have unblocked. NC, I'm not sure your characterization of the AfD is correct as the closer does not appear to have any ties to a sock farm. No comment on the others as I've not looked into them. The AfD was just on my radar from a DRV about the first close. Star Mississippi 01:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding my point and allowing me to communicate more efficiently with the community. Regarding the AfD of the Ali Niknam page, there were three delete votes, yet it was still closed as "keep". I strongly suspect UPE here. Can any admin please restore the discussion, as the closure is not done correctly. NenChemist (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I have relisted it. Please do feel free to weigh in there (NenChemist, and anyone else) Star Mississippi 02:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you NenChemist (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are familiar with WP:DRAFTIFY, then why did you draftify Wheere twice? You should know that if anyone objects to draftification, you should never draftify an article a second time. Please review our policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The unblock is also fair, but IMO this episode is as good a reason as any other to consider recommending that new articles be reviewed, tagged, or draftified by NPR rights holders only, who have obtained the right by demonstrating the required regular tenure and and experience and a period of probation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Since Star_Mississippi lifted the p-block, NenChemist has continued incorrectly draftifying articles:

1. Draft: Spenser Olson was draftified as a previously deleted article published without verifiable sources, neither of which are valid draftification reasons.
2. Draft:Storytailor was draftified without providing a reason in the edit summary; the creator was provided a general notice regarding notability guidelines.
3. MEPCO (company) was draftified with the rationale of being a previously deleted page by admin spicy under MEPCO name created by blocked sockpuppet; this isn't a valid reason for ratification, and I'm not fully certain I even understand this rationale (are they stating the current article creator is a sock? If so, that's potentially G5). Further, NenChemist had previously draftified the article, and Fram contested. As such, redraftifying this falls under DRAFTNO. I have moved back to mainspace.
4. Draft:Olesia Ostafiieva was draftified without a stated reason in the edit summary; I see no reason for this article to be draftified.
5. Wheere was draftified for COI, which is a valid draftification reason; however, this was a contested draft. Liz has moved the article back to mainspace.

Given that NenChemist quickly returned to incorrectly draftifying articles after having the p-block removed, I believe reinstating the p-block is appropriate. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I've deleted MEPCO (company) under G5; NenChemist is right that it was created by a DUCK sock of LaurelWest :) block and tagged! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the evening. Feel free to take whatever action is needed with the block. I advised @NenChemist on their Talk that AfD is the next step vs. continued draft warring. Star Mississippi 04:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Since MEPCO and Wheere were major concerns, that’s why I requested draftification. I understand and will be proceeding with AfD for contested drafts from now on.NenChemist (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"The Wheere article was created by the company's founder, Jean-PierreCL." Such accusations, without any evidence to back them up, are personal attacks, an attempt at WP:OUTING and not acceptable at all. A bit strange that such statements are a reason to remove a block instead of applying one, I have to say... Fram (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The funny thing is that editor added a section at the bottom of the page earlier about 'NonChemist', giving the implication of not being the founder, but then immediatley reverted it... (I see he posted the same content to your talk page, so perhaps that explains the revert here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I was travelling and then sleeping, so I only looked at the discussion(s) and made no comments. One point I think may have been overlooked in the discussion: the original issue was multiple draftifications and a few speedy delete or similar nominations taking place in rapidly succession. None had decent explanations, in fact most had no explanation and were clearly inappropriate so were reverted. NenChemist was warned in 2022, again a few weeks ago and the latest that precipitated this was a day or so ago.

I have been doing NPR for about a year mainly in STEM. Most often I tag, sometimes I edit, sometimes I mark as reviewed, some I post a question about on project pages such as WT:Physics (and many I decline to review as outside my comfort zone). I view draftification as a major step, comparable to AfD. I think both should only be done after tagging and allowing editors to improve/react -- which some do.

Independent of whether one or even two of the draftifications by NenChemist were reasonable, mass draftifications of many who were clearly notable was not. Hopefully there will be no more draftifications.

N.B., as @Kudpung กุดผึ้ง suggested I think (strongly) that draftification should be reserved for editors who have been screened for NPR or higher. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Yes, it was a mistake; I wanted to write for Fram not here. But I gave my opinion about this situation in the AfD. Jean-PierreCL (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why correctly connecting a username to an obvious to everyone but not 100% explicitly disclosed real person is blockable outing and gets oversighted swiftly, but speculatively connecting a username to a real person without a shred of evidence, on multiple pages, is apparently not an issue? I know WP:Outing is probably our worst policy anyway, but if we at least would apply it in cases like here, it might have some value. Fram (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look further into this @Fram but no objection to a reblock if anyone finds it necessary. Star Mississippi 01:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Intimidation tactics, suppression and other violations from Simonm223

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel like I'm at the DMV (been rerouted a few times, hopefully now I'm in the right spot).

TLDR; In good faith I made a DRN request to try to get a dispute resolved from the Gulf Talk Page. I may have made some errors in how I posted it, I'm new. Instead of following the directions provided in WP:DRN (eg. "Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants."), I maintain that I was threatened with banning, and my post was seemingly deleted.

After apparently also bringing my complaint about that treatment to the wrong place (Admin Noticeboard?) I was redirected here.

I now maintain:

1. I was essentially bullied out of using the DRN process, which i engaged for a legitimate and still lingering situation.

2. User Simonm223 has consistently broken policy, and action should be taken.

---

1. The removal of my DRN was unnecessary, overzealous, and counter productive and violated WP:CIVIL and was based on WP:NPOV violations.

• (One participant apologized. You can see their involvement in the diffs but I don't mean to further a complaint against them at this time.)
• This thinly veiled threat was left on my talk page after another person, who has since apologized, threatened me with being banned for raising a concern in DRN:
  • "If you'd read the instructions on the page you would have noted that the dispute resolution process cannot be used to override an RfC. All you're doing is wasting people's time. I would recommend you withdraw the request." and "I would strongly suggest you take the advice in that closure notice to heart and WP:DROPTHESTICK. It's getting quite tiresome." Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• My attempt to create a DRN was based on good faith and I believed, and maintain, it the appropriate place to bring up issues from The Gulf article.
• "I am tired of people acting as if consensus doesn't matter if the topic is an executive order from the president of the united states."Simonm223 (WP:Civil, WP:NPOV)
• "The consensus decision of the RfC is that would be undue. Lincoln2020 and certain other very new editors don't appear willing to accept the RfC". Simonm223 (WP:Civil, WP:NPOV)

---

2. Simonm223 has displayed WP:CIVIL WP:NPOV WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA behavior on multiple articles.

• The post which was made here is extremely inflammatory and insulting, even in the name: "Moratorium on this nonsense", implying that anyone who disagrees with him has nonsensical views.
  • "I think we're going to be stuck fielding whatabouts from the people who erroneously believe that the United States should be allowed to rewrite reality like O'Brien from 1984 for a very long time"
    • Those who disagree with their views are villains from the book which defined evil fascists for generations.
  • "if we don't start aggressively clerking this page"
    • This comment is particularly concerning given that they then went to my personal talk page and my DRN to shut down my attempt to find moderation and cooler, calmer debate. They did not just threaten to aggressively clerk, they followed through with it and fought to suppress a valid DRN attempt.
  • "if nobody can take away the US president's crayons we may have to suffer through four years of nonsense like this. Best to show early on that reality does not bend to the whims of a fool with an army."
    • Again striking a concerning tone around suppressing disagreement.
  • "Frankly the rigor of my comments is a reflection on the absurdity of the request. The Gulf of Mexico is international water and Donald Trump has no jurisdiction to unilaterally rename it. I don't see any valid reason whatsoever why we should humour him just because the Americans decided for some reason to elect him to their presidency again."
    • As an American, I take offense to this tone. This comment adds no value and is inflammatory and attacks Americans.
  • "Exactly. I think the reason that the people who are asking for this change are seeing such a negative reaction is that there is simply no framework wherein the American President can, by fiat, rename natural features that are not even fully within his country's jurisdiction. We understand that 29.3% of adult Americans cast a ballot for Donald Trump (excluding those who did not vote as well as those who voted for other candidates) but this plurality was not an election for king of the world. Even other American institutions realize this isn't a thing the President of their country has the authority to do. It's effectively a publicity stunt that the US President has engaged in so that he can throw a bone to a nationalist sub-set of his base. On such a weak basis, an international encyclopedia, such as en.wp should absolutely not be humouring him. "
    • Clear WP:NPOV
• Even statements like this, on an unrelated post, concern me; there's no evidence for the statement and I feel like it's just an opinion based on his disagreement with a source. This shows, to me, that the bias I believe I've shown above bleeds into other work. In fairness, I have no idea who Huntington is or if he's 'discredited', but his Wiki article says that he was at Harvard for over 50 years and led the Center for International Affairs there. On the surface, this seems like part of the above pattern to censor viewpoints they disagree with.
  • "I do love it when I click a link and it immediately cites Samuel P. Huntington who is pretty thoroughly discredited."
• A series of quite negative and passive aggressive conversations with other editors:
  • "And this discussion is now over."
  • "Please feel free to stop posting on my user talk page now."
  • "I think this conversation is over and I'd invite you to stop posting to my user talk page."
  • "I think you might want to review...

---

I believe that the DRN should be reopened, that moderation should occur on the Gulf article the DRN was about, and that this user should be restricted from political content until things can calm down. Thank you

PS:disclosure, I was also notified that contesting or doubting the authenticity of an RfC was improper to do in a talk page for an article. I take ownership of that, and should have come to the DRN sooner (newbie, sorry) ... although we can see where that got me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincoln2020 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• For anyone that was wondering what happened to the last thread, it was closed with an explicit statement that this is even though there are still outstanding complaints so, procedurally, this is kosher and not WP:FORUMSHOPPING. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  OK I'm honestly trying to disengage from Lincoln2020 so I'll make my statement now and then will be available to answer questions but will otherwise try not to speak too much here.

  Regarding point 1: I did not remove their DRN posting. Their DRN posting was closed as out of order because dispute resolution is not used for overturning RfC results. I was quite frustrated with Linconln2020 at the time because they have been very unwilling to accept the RfC closure and did tell them that I felt they were wasting people's time by tagging them into out of order processes. My statement that Lincoln2020 (among others) didn't want to accept the closure of the RfC was a statement of how I perceived the attempt to use DRN to overturn the RfC consensus.

  I understand that Lincoln2020 is very offended upon my call for a moratorium on new postings to Talk:Gulf of Mexico regarding inserting material regarding the Gulf of America executive order into the lede. At the time there were multiple threads regarding the Gulf of America executive order and it was disrupting the page. I simply was calling for some article stability in light of a recently closed RfC.

  In general many of Lincoln2020's complaints of incivility have nothing to do with any editors at all. For instance, my 1984 comment, while perhaps too flip, was about the expectation that Trump's executive orders would just be accepted by the world and not about any given editor on Wikipedia.

  I find the complaint about aggressive clerking particularly perplexing as what I was asking for, in the moratorium thread, was consensus that editors could archive or hat new threads being created to relitigate a recently closed RfC. It's me describing what enforcement of the RfC meant and, notably, it is one that depends on not taking any action against editors and instead merely controlling conversation to prevent it from becoming forumy.

  My comment about Trump and crayons may have been overstepping on BLP grounds at the time. I was speaking from frustration which isn't the best. Nobody has actually asked me to strike or revert it directly. I am willing to do so.

  I don't understand how my apology for the length of a prior reply combined with a factual statement that the President of the United States doesn't have jurisdiction to rename international bodies of water constitutes any sort of civility issue.

  I have no comment on Lincoln2020 calling my statement that the majority of Americans did not vote for Trump an insult to Americans.

  Asserting a statement about the quality of a source is precisely what article talk pages are for. The Huntington comment was precisely that.

  The bottom is just a series of out of context complaints about me assertively ending arguments on my user talk page. I prefer not to engage in extended arguments there and if it's clear a conversation is going that way I shut the conversation, at user talk, down. This is normal.

  I don't understand why Lincoln2020 believes reopening the DRN report is a correct course of action. Per the language at the DRN page the DRN cannot overturn an RfC consensus. Had they opened an RfC review at WP:AN I would not have asked them to close it as a waste of time as that would have been within appropriate process.

  One last note: prior to my call for a moratorium on Gulf of America articles Lincoln2020 had a grand total of 13 edits of which this talk page comment is the only one that is not marked as a minor edit. Since my call for a moratorium, Lincoln2020 has made three additional minor edits and this one article talk page edit that is not related to me. The remaining 38 edits that Lincoln2020 has made in their history as a Wikipedia editor were arguing about the moratorium or trying to open the RfC (which they seem to never have !voted in to begin with) and then trying to get me in trouble at WP:AN and here. Considering they tagged me, specifically, into the DRN as, I believe, the only oppose !voter tagged I'm honestly feeling a little bit WP:HOUNDED - Lincoln2020 has a bone to pick with me. They've made that evidently clear. But with zero substantive article space edits and only two unrelated talk space edits what Lincoln2020 has not made clear is whether they're on Wikipedia for any other reason than trying to get me into some sort of trouble. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  (Redacted) Tban violation by another editor removed _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hi there user:Rosguill, or should I say top of the morning. So... I had no idea what this meant, as I'm rather new to editing, and it took me a while to piece it together but ... it looks like we deleted a comment from someone else claiming that Simonm223 engaged in inappropriate behavior elsewhere? True or not, I think that person should be entitled to their opinion, and if there is a pattern here I think it should be investigated. In fact, I'm seeing that other users who are defending Simonm223 here voted to ban that other user (TarnishedPath, who accused me of forum shopping).

  Simonmn had 15 posts on that person's ban discussion, including telling other editors things like "it would probably be wise to step back now". I'm seeing clear patterns of bullying, aggression, and 'I'm going to ban you if you disagree with me' type behavior.

  I didn't review everything, but it seems to me like that person's ban was for much more civil behavior than Simonmn223's. Although their views did hint at political opinions, but I think user:liz pointed out opinions are generally okay (so long as they're civil and not attacks in line with wp:TALKPOV, I'm assuming).

  I understand their ban from political talk pages etc. must be respected unless overturned, but if their comment is around user behavior and not political opinions, and if their claims are found to be valid, is deleting evidence of further misdeeds not prejudicial to my case? If we look at the claims and find they're untrue, that's another thing altogether. Lincoln2020 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Lincoln2020 the problem is that all of the evidence that you have provided falls within the scope of their topic ban, and all of their prior editing history falls within the scope of the topic ban, so there is no basis for them to be participating in the discussion at this time. Behavioral conduct is considered related to the topic over which it occurs. It's also worth noting that they provided no further examples of misconduct in their comment, so they left your case no stronger than it was before they had arrived. I removed it to both make it clear to the editor that this was in fact a tban violation (as they were under the impression it was not), and to prevent an already less-than-helpful tangent from further wasting people's time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose any topic ban or any other sanction. Nothing provided here provides any justification for such an action. While I do think he ought to be more mindful about the political digs, the ones presented are so mild that anyone with a modicum of self control ought to be able to adult around it. Not even a trout is appropriate here, and WP:PLANKTON is a red link.

  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  (OK, with the trolly vote section removed, there's less need to for this last comment, so no objection if someone wants to remove it). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just reminding Lincoln2020 to review WP:NPOV, particularly this statement, Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. Some of your points seem to reflect your offense at Simonm223's opinions. Having an opinion does not mean that an editor is biased in their editing. If that were true, then the majority of our editors shouldn't be editing because most editors have their own opinion, especially in contentious areas. I encourage editors reviewing this complaint to focus on actions taken by editors and not opinions expressed unless they can be seen as personal attacks or it affects article content. And that recommendation is suggested for all editors, no matter what their political stance is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks User:Liz. Not trying to drone on and trying to be as concise as possible, but tldr; I think you're mostly right on NPOV specifically. Strictly speaking NPOV doesn't apply to talk, although the WP:TALKPOV applies ("be positive", "be polite", "stay objective"). They followed none of those guidelines. Lincoln2020 (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I supported there being some mistakes in how the DRN was closed in the previous discussion but the closure itself was clearly correct. DRNs can't overturn such widely attended recent RfCs which achieved consensus. Pretty much all editors who are active enough are going to find community consensus is against them at times and need to be able to accept that and move on. This is the case for you and what you're asking for in the DRN. Unless you're willing to accept that and drop it, I can't see any hope for you continuing to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Aye, agreed. Also the DRN says "At the very least, the article should have reference to the major changes which have occurred. Whether or not they're lasting, it becomes its main name, whatever, I'm not sure ... but I don't see any sort of reasonable explanation for not having it mentioned.". Yet, it is mentioned in the "Name" section. To me, this just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BTW, I'm not sure if anyone mention this before but if you believe the RfC itself was closed incorrectly, Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures is the process which starts with discussing the closure with the closer. However I'd strongly recommend against you using this process. I have not reviewed the RfC so cannot comment on if the closure is correct. However given how well attended it is, and how much attention it's received from experienced editors I'm fairly sure if it was closed incorrectly some more experienced editor would have challenged it by now. To be clear, you can only challenge the closure because it was in error in some way. You can't challenge it just because you think the community consensus is incorrect. Again if you feel the community consensus is incorrect, it's something you just have to accept for now just as we all do at times. WP:Consensus can change so it might be okay to ask again in 6 months or more in the future and see if things are different if you're so sure the consensus was incorrect (but do carefully consider whether it's likely consensus has changed). Note I opposed anything more than a 2 months moratorium on this very issue because I felt the situation may change. In that case it might be more reasonable (IMO) to consider appearance in the lead again in a shorter timeframe. But not because you feel the consensus was simply wrong especially in such a well attended RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I should clarify my suggestions on future RfC are in the absence of any formal moratorium. To be clear any formal moratorium will need to be respected regardless of agreement with it just like with any consensus decision. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The DRN lays out the case, which cites the rules and guidelines for RfCs and clearly describes how I believe the rules weren't followed. It was closed improperly, but this isn't about that.

This is about my belief that, as I've shown with 10 examples (and there are more), the user is acting inappropriately.

Taken in sum, with just a few of the comments from above, they have said that those who disagree with them are "erroneously" spouting "nonsense" with their "absurd requests" in line with a probably 'illegitimate president who is a tyrant' ("king") and a "fool with an army" who "uses crayons" and acts on "whims", By the way, if you don't agree, you're a clearly a 'dumb American' and even a 'villain from 1984' who should be "aggressively clerked".

Please note, "these are quotes" and 'these are paraphrases' which take the essence of what was said from the context. I'll also note that I don't even disagree with some of their political views from above. But that doesn't mean it's okay to accuse anyone who disagrees with their other viewpoints (ie on Gulf) of the things I detailed above (and perhaps that's why it's so offensive).

Call that minor if you'd like, but the behavior goes against a great number of rules/guidelines as I've laid out in detail, is offensive, and is not okay - it would not be okay from anyone on any side of political opinions. It's certainly not up to the higher standards and neutrality we're supposed to have here. Lincoln2020 (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Enough. Well, you've misrepresented the first one I looked at (the "villain from 1984" one is simply talking about people who believe the USA should be allowed to act like O'Brien from 1984, not that the editors are acting like him). And the second one (the "Dumb Americans" one) doesn't contain those words. So I didn't bother looking at the others and I think we're basically being trolled here. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The 'Dumb Americans' was a paraphrase, as I pointed out: "Please note, "these are quotes" and 'these are paraphrases' which take the essence of what was said from the context."

The full quote is "just because the Americans decided for some reason to elect him to their presidency again." clearly shows that he doesn't understand why anyone in their right mind would vote for someone he disagrees with ("for some reason") and his other comments ("crayons", "fool with an Army") point to him believing that those people are dumb. I stand by my paraphrase.

As for 1984, I quoted him in full above, and you are clearly incorrect in saying I misrepresented him. "I think we're going to be stuck fielding whatabouts from the people who erroneously believe that the United States should be allowed to rewrite reality like O'Brien from 1984 for a very long time if we don't start aggressively clerking this page"

This is his first line of his "Moratorium on this nonsense" which is, in fact, pointed at all of us, as editors, and directed toward anyone who disagrees. He is in fact claiming that anyone who is posting anything in disagreement with him "erroneously believe(s) that the United States should be allowed to rewrite reality like O'Brien from 1984". This is absolutely not a "positive", "polite" or "objective" comment. Lincoln2020 (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, well, we don't sanction people for things they didn't say. Given the torrent of people turning up at the articles talk page demanding that we change the article title (who range from polite to completely deranged), I'm not entirely surprised that Simonm223 is suggesting that we stop the incessant non-useful talk page posts for a few months. And frankly, I don't see that the word "nonsense" is entirely problematic given the level of disruption. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"One man's nonsense is another man's sense". -Peter Cameron. To call other's beliefs nonsense is a literal insult, as bizarre as you may think they are, there are better ways to handle it. Why not just say "Moratorium on debate"?

My supplementary post in which I paraphrased was of course my opinion. I believe the quotes in my original complaint stand on their own.

I get it. The conversation was exhausting. That's why I tried to go to DRN, as an attempt to de-escalate. I sense and understand your frustration, but my intentions were pure and the intimidation I feel for trying to raise valid points is real. Thanks for your feedback at any rate, for what it's worth. Lincoln2020 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Lincoln2020 I did not !vote in that discussion. Nevertheless while I've not looked that closely at the sources my impression is it's likely a mistake was made in excluding Gulf of America from the lead. I feel Simonm223 "from this nonsense" was unnecessary but also do not feel it in any way applies to me as someone who may disagree with their view of whether it belongs in the lead. I see no reason to think that and nothing I've seen them saying supports it. I did partly oppose a moratorium but see absolutely no reason to think it applies to my opposition either. In fact that's just silly, if it were so clear cut there would be no reason to even try to get consensus for a moratorium. Perhaps to some extent it's not wrong for you think the "this nonsense" applies to you but that's only because you've continued to try and push it despite a clear consensus against you. This isn't just disagreeing with Simonm223's view on what we should do here but it's doing something which is unwelcome on the English Wikipedia by most of the community however they may feel about that particular issue. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, people interpret things differently and you may not feel like they applied to you while others did. That said, I think it's tough to argue that it's 'civil' at any rate, especially when combined with the myriad of other insults towards politicians he disagrees with (and their voters). Appreciate your input, Nil. Lincoln2020 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• OP needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK before this turns into a WP:BOOMERANG. Looking at the article's talk this has been discussed to death with no consensus for any change and there is current discussion on a WP:MORATORIUM that looks like it will get consensus. Continued WP:FORUMSHOP is extremely disruptive. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  This is not about the content or direction of the article per se, this is about abusive and biased behavior (including the moratorium title which assumes anyone who disagrees with the moratorium believes in "nonsense"). Likewise, I see no need for you to threaten me with WP:Boomerang for trying to resolve legitimate and well documented issues. User:Liz closed the issue in AP and she recommended I come here instead. Thank you. Lincoln2020 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I'd actually like to apologize for being defensive and saying directly "I see no need for you to threaten me". I should attempt to stay more neutral, although I admit sometimes it's difficult while feeling shut down. I should have said, re-boomerang:

  While I understand WP:BOOMERANG aims to curb bad-faith reports, it shouldn’t be used as a bludgeon to discourage legitimate concerns—WP:HARASSMENT warns against intimidation, and we’re directed to assume good faith. I’m reporting what I see as abusive behavior per Liz’s guidance, not disrupting for fun. Editors should feel safe raising issues without fear of retaliation (which is what I have felt multiple times now being warned of "boomerang" for raising my concern. I forgot about that actually ... Simonmn223 actually said "I guess the question now is will Lincoln2020 drop the stick or should we start looking at a boomerang" to me too. AGF; I'm assuming you guys didn't mean it as a threat, but I'd like you to know it comes off as one.

  As WP:MUTUALBOOMERANG notes, "Don’t ignore Bob’s bad behavior while rushing to tell Alice her response will boomerang on her"—let’s address the root issue too.

  I'm also really trying to WP:AGF here and I'm not claiming intent or anything, but I do think it is worth reminding that WP:COI may exist based on editing history in line with Simonm223, including at least one vote on the same side as a political ban request, quite a few contentious articles, their own talk pages, and the very page which led to my DRN request where you cast a vote strongly in the opposite direction as me [53].

  If at all possible, I think it's fair to request that only neutral editors weigh in here, unless a COI is perhaps noted. Again, not accusing, just something to be aware of. Lincoln2020 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sure but it goes both ways... It seems like you're asking people to hold yourself and Simonm223 to different standards... IMO neither of you looks particularly clean here, but it also doesn't seem to be ANI worthy. I would also suggest brevity, most people aren't going to take the time to read through overly long and rambly comments (trust me, I'm a natural rambler too). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's fair to request that only neutral editors weigh in here

  It is not. People are allowed to comment here, neutral or not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Lincoln2020, a WP:BOOMERANG may occur anytime an editor raises a complaint about another editor's conduct. It is not an attempt to shut discussion down, but editors need to be clear that their own behaviour will also be under the microscope. TarnishedPath^talk 01:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• I realize that this particular complaint has only been open a day now but the previous one on WP:AN was open for over a week. And through all of that discussion, while I've read criticism of both editors, I don't recall seeing any serious proposals for topic bans or other sanctions aside from the complaints by the OP. Editors can continue to weigh in here with their assessment of the evidence and arguments but, as of now, I don't see any movement toward action against an involved editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just FYI User:Liz, it was only open for little more than 3 days, and, having just reviewed it again, I see only 1 analysis of 1 of his quotes that I actually complained about, in which Super Goku V disagreed with Chess's opinion on the 1984 comment. I may have missed a few others, but that's across ... a ton of text, as you've pointed out.

  The rest - almost all of it other than a post agreeing with me - is an attempt to attack me for making a complaint or sidebar conversations. As this has turned into.

  In the real world, retaliation - attacking whistle blowers - is illegal. Obviously it's not, can't, and shouldn't, be here. But it's worth noting that civilized society in most developed nations have literally outlawed attacking people for raising concerns. Yet here we see a gang of editors - now 5 - who have all voted in agreement with the post I'm complaining about, attacking the person with the concern and trying to get him banned.

  I've gotta say, my original concerns regarding neutrality on wiki were pretty spot on. Now I remember why I never got into editing 5 years ago when I made my account. Sad. Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  Hm, there's probably several WP:OWB entries here, but #34 seems especially on point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments about the DRN Request

There are at least two issues being raised by User:Lincoln2020 that are not related. The first is about their request for moderated discussion at DRN. The second is their complaint against User:Simonm223. I don't fully understand their complaint against Simonm223, perhaps because I have only read it twice. However, if Lincoln2020 is blaming Simonm223 for the closure of their DRN request, they are wrong. It is true that Simonm223 posted to their talk page saying that they were in error in filing the DRN. Simonm223 however was not responsible for its closure and archival. It was closed by User: Kovcszaln6, correctly. I wouldn't have characterized the dispute as "ridiculous", and they apologized for the incivility, but the statement by Lincoln2020 was inconsistent and nearly incomprehensible. The dispute may not have been ridiculous, but the filing statement could reasonably be characterized as ridiculous.

Kovcszaln6 was right that DRN was the wrong forum to discuss the naming of the Gulf of Mexico, for at least two reasons. First, DRN is not a forum for any dispute for which there is another forum. For example, DRN is not a forum to discuss or disagree with a deletion discussion. More to the point, DRN is not a forum either for an issue that is being discussed in an RFC or an issue that has already been the subject of an RFC. An editor who is dissatisfied with the closure of an RFC may request a close review at WP:AN. Second, after the community has provided or tried to provide consensus, it would be unfair to second-guess that consensus by discussion with a smaller number of editors, but DRN is for moderated discussion with a small number of editors. Closure review at WP:AN, on the other hand, is a community process for reviewing a community process.

The DRN request will not be reopened. DRN is the wrong forum for challenging the close of an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. However, I'd kindly point out that the topic of this is not WP:CONTENTDISPUTE or a DRN, it is WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which I documented in detail. Lincoln2020 (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Except that in your opening thread you spent a long time talking about how the closure of the DRN was inappropriate and "I believe that the DRN should be reopened". If you didn't want people to discuss this then you shouldn't have said it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I see how that could be confusing. This was meant to address the abusive closing of a DRN, and other abuses, not a litigation of the content of the DNR. Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The closure of the DRN was not abusive. The closure of the DRN was correct, because DRN is not a forum to question the close of an RFC. Also, Simonm223 was not responsible for the closure of the DRN. Also, Lincoln2020 did demand that the DRN be reopened. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

There was zero mischief in the closing of that DRN. The only mischief to be had in the DRN was you starting it, on the basis of you disagreeing with the outcome of an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 23:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree on one detail with User:TarnishedPath. The starting of the DRN was not mischievous or abusive, and the closing of the DRN was not mischievous or abusive because it was correct. Lincoln2020, as an inexperienced editor, did not know that DRN is not used after RFC. Some experienced editors don't know that. Their demand that the DRN be reopened was abusive, as was any attempt to blame or credit Simon with the closing of the DRN. (Their report is very poorly written, and it is difficult to tell what they are blaming Simon for.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're missing the point I'm making. You specifically asked for the DRN the be reopened in this thread claiming the closure is abusive. It's therefore quite reasonable for editors to say no whatever mistakes were made in the summary, the closure was quite correct. It's also quite reasonable for editors to say there isn't a snowballs chance of it being reopened as it was trying to do something DRNs cannot do, overturn a very recent widely attended RfC which found consensus against what the DRN was asking for. While I agree with Robert McClenon that as a very experienced inexperienced editor we can say you opening the DRN wasn't abusive, it was still a mistake and not good editing. You should have learnt this when people told you when closing the RfC DRN whatever mistakes in the summary or at least from the previous AN but didn't and still opened this thread asking for the DRN to be reopened which is starting to get into abusive territory since editors don't have time to tell you in 10 different ways the same thing. Further your comment about conduct proves that what you're trying to do is more harmful that just wanting to reopen an inappropriate DRN. You're continuing to claim that an overall appropriate closure was not only wrong but abusive. You're asking accusing editors of abuse. I'm personally very confused who you're accusing of abuse since you keep concentrating on Simonm223 despite them having no role in the closure but whatever you're accusing one or more editors of abuse simply for making an overall appropriate close. If you didn't want people to talk about whether the closure was appropriate and whether the DRN should be reopened then you shouldn't have said it wasn't and asked for it to be reopened when closing opening this thread. While ANI is supposed to be about conduct not content, in this case I don't really see the point of getting into semantics over what is what but. Suffice to say the closure was appropriate, the DRN isn't being be reopened, no one was abusive to close it, you need to stop asking for it to be reopened and you need to stop complaining when people talking about what you asked for when opening this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I fixed some typos etc, it's been a while but since no one replied I felt it fine to just do it without generally making clear what I fixed. I did make it clear when I fixed a more major error. Also as for other claims of abuse, I'm in agreement with those who've said Simonm223's behaviour hasn't been perfect but it's been far enough from anything needing sanction. Also they seem to have acknowledged they've made mistakes and are trying to do better. So I don't see a reason to pursue any of that further. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey Nil! Genuinely curious if I've missed this: "Also they seem to have acknowledged they've made mistakes and are trying to do better."

From what I've seen, their responses to my report were continuations of the perceived threats of silencing me, consistent with the topic-ban proposal of me below. I haven't seen any acknowledgement of bias or wrongdoing. Lincoln2020 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Well in the original thread they said "I had sincere, and helpful, motivations for my actions there and I'm actually somewhat aghast at myself that this isn't what was seen by others. I would like to do better at this. I don't personally consider my actions at Soka School to be successful" and other parts of their reply also indicated they recognised the way they'd handled things hadn't always been the best or worked as intended. Above we can see "my 1984 comment, while perhaps too flip" and "My comment about Trump and crayons may have been overstepping on BLP grounds at the time. I was speaking from frustration which isn't the best. Nobody has actually asked me to strike or revert it directly. I am willing to do so.". They aren't of course required to agree with every single one of your complaints, especially since basically every single other editor in good standing doesn't really agree most of what you're complaining about is a big deal. Could they be a bit more contrite? Sure. But they've at least acknowledged they've made mistakes. By comparison, AFAIK you still haven't acknowledged it was a mistake to open the DRN and an even bigger mistake to complain about it being correctly closed. I mean if you'd wanted to quibble with some of the wording like the comment on you saying couldn't find a RfC, whatever you could have approached the closer about it and talked to them on their talk page. But you didn't, instead opened two different threads about it and after several days of several editors explaining to you why it was closed correctly, you still don't seem to understand that. It also remains unclear if you even understand that Simonm223 had zero role in closing the DRN. From reading one of your replies linked below it's not even clear if you understand what WP:consensus means on Wikipedia despite it being fundamental to Wikipedia, and the dispute you're involved in. I'm not going to go into anymore in that, you're welcome to read the policy page and seek help at WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse while you can. But as a brief tip, consensus doesn't have to mean compromise, for better or worse there are plenty of times when it doesn't. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've spent way too long on this already so will leave with one final comment. I'm not sure if someone has already explained this but understand that ANI is for very serious cases where sanctioned is warranted against an editor to protect Wikipedia. We used to have WP:RfC/U but it's widely regarded as a spectacular failure. This means there isn't really any community way to deal with an editor's misbehaviour when it doesn't warrant sanction. I mean okay occasionally there are warnings issues as a result of ANI threads but these are a sort of odd-duck. Generally an editor opening an ANI does so because they feel that some sort of actual sanction e.g. topic ban, temporarily block or something of that sort might be warranted and want the community to consider if it is. So if the behaviour being complained about is only enough for a warning, opening an ANI thread is generally not on, instead just approach the editor directly and ask them to cut it out. If they don't change, you can ask again. If it continues as much as you may feel it's wrong, unless it's crossed over the level where it warrants sanction for better or worse there's not much you can do except ask again (unless it's clear your complaints are unwelcome) and just accept it and hope other editors see the same problem and approach this editor and one of them is enough to get this editor to change. If that never happens and the editor continues past the point where it does warrant sanction, then only is it right for some editor to open a thread. As an exception there are logged warnings under CTOP and AFAIK it's fine to make a complaint because you feel one is justified but ANI isn't the place for trying to get those. I don't deal much with CTOP but I think even at WP:A/R/E and despite the lower tolerances for misbehaviour under CTOP, you still need a fairly serious case and complaints that seem frivolous are unwelcome no matter if others agree behaviour was imperfect. To be clear, there is no way in general to get a ruling on whether some specific behaviour was right or wrong, that's not how Wikipedia works. Even RfC/U didn't really work that way. In other words, although Simonm223's behaviour might not have been perfect, considering everyone seems to agree it did not cross the line to warrant sanction there was really no need to open a thread. As I said before, IMO even despite this being your second bite, under the conditions if you'd just opened this thread then quickly accepted what everyone was telling you that there was nothing there to warrant sanction, I don't think anyone would be considering sanction against you. But this wasn't what happened instead you continued to complain about even stuff clearly not even wrong like closing the DRN and it sounds like you're still doing after several days of people telling you that. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban

Liz said that she hadn't seen a specific proposal for admin action. Lincoln2020 has thrown a boomerang at a kangaroo that isn't there, because kangaroos don't swim in the Gulf of Mexico. I propose that Lincoln2020 be topic-banned from American politics since 1992. This could be done at Arbitration Enforcement, but we are here and it can also be done here. This whole discussion, and the discussion at WP:AN, have been a timesink, and the reason is the Original Poster. I am willing to consider some other sanction, but we should take some action against the OP.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support given the WP:TENDITIOUS behaviour of Lincoln as exemplified by them starting the discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 254#Gulf of Mexico. TarnishedPath^talk 02:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose – I respectfully oppose this topic-ban proposal and ask for an objective look at the facts. Robert McClenon calls this a “boomerang at a kangaroo that isn't there, because kangaroos don't swim in the Gulf of Mexico". I'm not sure if making light of my legitimate accusations of incivility, political attacks, bias, and at this point, harassment, is appropriate. I’m reporting abusive behavior in this forum as instructed by User:Liz. This isn’t WP:TENDITIOUS disruption ... it’s in good faith. It's a response to inappropriate behavior which is well documented, objective, and which you have ignored in your response. WP:MUTUALBOOMERANG says: “Don’t ignore Bob’s bad behavior while sanctioning Alice’s response”—let’s address the abuses 'Alice' (that's me!) has detailed.

WP:HARASSMENT and WP:NPA bar intimidation, and WP:DR guards against retaliating for concerns—yet “boomerang” warnings keep coming to shut this down.

TarnishedPath’s support cites my DRN post which was not frivolous. I’m assuming WP:AGF, though both Robert McClendon and TarnishedPath have extensive mutual editing with involved parties which likely merits a neutrality check per WP:COI. I think the potential harassment from these two editors may even warrant response. The intimidation and retaliation factor around anyone who disagrees is one of the very topics of my original complaint. It seems bold to continue the methodology in my complaint itself.

However, I'd like to give you a chance to explain yourself, Robert, as I might be missing something. Here Liz responded to an editor who opened two ANI requests for the same person, in the same place, warning them about opening complaints on someone without good reason. You agreed with her warning. This is my first complaint, basically nobody has weighed in on the inappropriate comments I am reporting, and, in fact, I was guided here by Liz. Why is the standard different for me? I won't make assumptions. Is it because you didn't like the viewpoint I held on an article talk page? Is it because of your history editing with Simonmn223? You did in fact post a warning template on my talk page in the very next post on my talk page immediately after Simonm223's comments which I'm complaining about (one of only 2 caution templates you've done this year). Coincidence? And why is your complaint accompanied by an odd comment about kangaroos and unrelated political topics? As noted meticulously and repeatedly, this is a WP:CONDUCT complaint and has nothing to do with the content of an article. Lincoln2020 (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Accusing Robert and me of having a COI is about the most absurd thing you could possibly do in this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd remind TarnishedPath that WP:CIVIL should still apply here, and this post is unconstructive.

Back to the point; do you deny having voted on Simonm223's Gulf post, commenting on it, and voting with Simonm223 on the banning of other editors? Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing Tarnished said was uncivil. You, however, are very close to accusing Tarnished of conspiracy just because they happened to agree with Simonm. I strongly suggest you drop this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Calling someone absurd is civil? Lincoln2020 (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a clear and important difference between "that thing you said was absurd" and "you are absurd". 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

"I’m reporting abusive behavior in this forum as instructed by User:Liz. [...] This is my first complaint, basically nobody has weighed in on the inappropriate comments I am reporting, and, in fact, I was guided here by Liz." (Emphasis Mine)

Just to be clear, what Liz said was: "[...] and I would suggest that if there are still concerns about specific "incidents", that the editors open a case on WP:ANI." (EM) That was just a suggestion, not a specific order or direction. You were not required to have created this discussion or the others. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Why does it not surprise me that this WP:TENDITIOUS editor is misrepresenting what administrators have written. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

If any editor would like to look at these WP:Harrassment personal attacks, it would be appreciated. Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Lincoln2020, the only personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONs in this discussion are from you. Drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"Instructed" was not intended to be literal, as in she wrote out a set of instructions and demanded I come here, that is correct. Thank you for clarifying if that wasn't clear. Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Lincoln2020, your claim "basically nobody has weighed in on the inappropriate comments I am reporting" doesn't seem to be true. In this thread, I see BlackKite, Horse Eye's Back and CoffeeCrumbs have all weighed in on the conduct of Simonm223. In fact I did as well although mostly as an aside. There were also editors who weighed in on the behaviour on the previous AN. Also in so much as there wasn't more discussion of the behaviour it didn't help that even after all the previous discussion you still opened this thread complaining about the closure of the DRN and suggesting it should be reopened meaning this discussion was split because editors such as me felt it necessary to point out your suggestion was highly flawed. If you had understood what all previous editors had told you that the DRN was never going to be reopened and it was inappropriate for you to bring it to DRN when there was a clear consensus in the RfC and hadn't split this discussion in the first place, this split wouldn't have happened. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Lincoln2020 has been pushing this issue to the point of it being disruptive. The stick should have been dropped long ago. King Lobclaw (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I don't believe I've interacted with Lincoln2020 before, but I happened upon the discussion at AN and it made me curious to check out this follow-up report. I have to say: it's rare that someone establishes themselves this quickly as an inveterate WP:SEALION. This line from their "Oppose" !vote above sealed the deal for me both Robert McClendon and TarnishedPath have extensive mutual editing with involved parties which likely merits a neutrality check per WP:COI. Editor time is our most precious resource, and we shouldn't have to drain any more of it into contending with vacuous argumentation of this sort. If they can show they're able to edit constructively in other areas and come to a point where they can reflect critically on the behavior that led to their t-ban, this ban need not be permanent. Generalrelative (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  Leaning toward site ban, given the frenzy of doubling down below. I will not back down from doing what's right is the definition of WP:RGW. Lincoln2020: It's good to have a sense of morality and the courage of your convictions. But have you considered how it might impinge on the functioning of a collaborative project such as this –– where contributors come from a variety of perspectives regarding what is right –– if everyone were to behave as you do? Wikipedia thrives precisely because we are able to work with people with whom we disagree, within certain bounds of tolerance, and accept when consensus is against us. If you can't do that, there are other places on the internet that will welcome your intransigence. Generalrelative (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support T-ban. After Simonm223's description of Lincoln2020's contributions history above (I'm talking about the bit beginning "One last note: prior to my call for a moratorium on Gulf of America articles"), I took a look at Lincoln's contribs and they are indeed focused on Simonm almost to the exclusion of all else. I don't blame Simonm, whose own contributions are spread out in quite a different way, for feeling hounded. If IBANs weren't so nightmarishly hard to delimit and patrol, especially one-way IBANS, I would suggest Lincoln be I-banned from Simonm. But better not. Anyway, a T-ban from post-1992 American politics should have a bit of an I-ban effect, along with IMO other good effects. I support such a T-ban, for persistent tendentious editing, sealioning, and wasting editors' time. (Robert M has proposed simply a ban from "American politics", but I think it's pleasing to make the specifics the same as for a normal ArbCom AE ban. I wouldn't really mind if Lincoln were to write about Thomas Jefferson or the like. Perhaps post-1992 was actually what you meant, Robert McClenon? You do link to WP:ARBAP2.) Bishonen | tålk 21:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC).

  User:Bishonen - I was sloppy in the wording of the proposal, and have added since 1992 to clarify that I do mean as specified in the contentious topic decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. A necessary and proportionate measure to stop repeated disruption caused by what appears to be an inability to correctly use dispute resolution mechanisms and a lack of willingness to accept own mistakes. Hopefully, things will be better outside of the American politics topic area. —Alalch E. 01:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody has ruled on "my mistakes"; you're using this reverseboomerang ban post about me as the rationale which guides your vote in the very same ban post. I came here only after Liz said this would be the appropriate place to open a complaint if I felt the open issues were still worthy pursuing. Lincoln2020 (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Editors are ruling on your mistakes right here. That's what this sanction proposal is about, your mistakes which are getting worse and worse by the day with your persistent refusal to listen to what anyone is telling you even Liz who you are claiming asked you to open this thread when she didn't and had already said she didn't even before you kept making that claim. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Please do not use my words in the past as an instrument to pummel another editor. My goal, in closing the WP:AN discussion was to bring what I thought was a non-productive discussion to an end while at the same time acknowledging that this closure would be unsatisfactory to the OP. I'm disappointed that they have persued this complaint despite the lack of support from other editors. I can't say that I expected a BOOMERANG here but I was hoping that Lincoln would drop this complaint and return to constructive editing rather than trying to seek sanctions against other editors. I've found that the less time you spend on noticeboards, the stronger your mental health. And I mean that for all editors on this project. I think everyone would benefit if you withdrew your complaint Lincoln because I don't see consensus going in your favor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  I will not back down from doing what's right; almost nobody has addressed the obviously inappropriate comments and threats from Simonmn223, and this has turned into an excellent example of what happens if you disagree with a biased editor who is allowed a double standard while calling people names and threatening them for their political beliefs. WP:CABAL if I've ever seen it. For god's sake, the only person with the guts to stand up and say something in agreement with the obvious here had their comment deleted. You can't make this up. The studies are indeed true. If I said 1/10th of what Simonm223 did directly to you I'd be banned. Right? If I told you your opinions were 'absurd nonsense'? If I said the only people who could possibly agree with your opinion are 'fools with army's acting on a whim and making EOs with crayons', and then threatened to 'aggressively clerk' you? As it turns out, all I did was report him and it's looking like I'll get tbanned on something unrelated when I, to my knowledge, haven't made any controversial additions to any articles.

  I could have been told that his comments weren't in-appropriate. He could have been warned that his snarky politicized responses were too hot and the naming of his moratorium post was offensive (it is).

  Instead, nearly everyone here has practically copy-pasted the example of what not to do in the double boomerang section. Again; can't make this stuff up. And with the world watching and donors wondering if Wiki can be neutral, it's amazing to me that there aren't any people left willing to stand up for neutrality even for those they may politically disagree with. Lincoln2020 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  From Nil Einne, yesterday: Lincoln2020, your claim "basically nobody has weighed in on the inappropriate comments I am reporting" doesn't seem to be true. In this thread, I see BlackKite, Horse Eye's Back and CoffeeCrumbs have all weighed in on the conduct of Simonm223. In fact I did as well although mostly as an aside. There were also editors who weighed in on the behaviour on the previous AN.

  Additionally, your are only facing a TBAn at the moment, but if you make additional replies like the one above, you will potentially face a WP:SBAN. It is better for a user whose conduct in under review to drop the temperature in discussions by staying cool, than to continue to escalate things. ---Super Goku V (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, forgot nobody is allowed any critical opinions. What rule was that again? Lincoln2020 (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Site Ban

• Support site ban for continuing to double triple quadruple down on their everyone else is wrong not me battleground mentality.Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  The WP:Harrassment continues. .

  Let's be clear, Liz told me to come here if I felt the unresolved issues needed resolving. I did. Lincoln2020 (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, you were supposed to use good judgment into whether they did. You failed at that by opening this thread. Still if you'd just opened this thread and then dropped it when editors made it clear there was nothing to warrant action, I doubt anyone would have bothered to propose sanction. But even now, you're continuing to push for sanction for no good reason, even against stuff which was fine like closing the DRN. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  See what I mean, I was originally going to support only a t-ban but your behaviour here is what lead me to support a site ban as I believe that you would straight up ignore the t-ban and refuse to drop the stick. Want people to stop supporting t-bans against you? Drop the stick and stop digging yourself into your own hole, I have never even been involved in the topic area and you are accusing me of joining in on supposed harassment. Hint: If everyone else says to drop the stick you should consider that it is you who is in the wrong. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Changing vote from support TBan to support block for tendentious mendacity and sealioning. This has gone on long enough. Numerous discussions didn't go your way, but instead of accepting it, regrouping and waiting, you've decided to become a time sink. I'm not onboard with a siteban, but the only way Linc is going to stop is if he's made to stop. Give them a two week cooldown. As an aside, there are users on their talk page egging them on. They could probably do with a warning. King Lobclaw (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban per Lavalizard1011. I've been watching this for a while and the battleground mentality has become clearer and clearer, eg "Sorry, forgot nobody is allowed any critical opinions. What rule was that again?". Support topic ban as second choice. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Lean site ban As this is a new user, my first inclination was no action. By the time this TBan proposal was made, I was thinking TBan was correct. Taking TarnishedPath’s good faith warning of a boom as a threat indicates a general attitudinal problem, albeit not uncommon for a new user. After the TBan proposal was made, the continued argumentation, wikilawyering, and COI claim it seems that a site ban is called for. Having seen how this filing was progressing, the filer should have simply withdrawn the filing before it hit 8,000 words and it might have been written off as a learning experience. But they just won’t listen. Struck lean after their latest comments. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• I support a site ban per Lavalizard1011. Lincoln2020 has shown, that they refuse to listen to feedback, by taking any feedback as a threat. The most concerning part of Lincoln2020's behaviour is the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" attitude.

Codename AD ^talk 17:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support a Site Ban after this flagrant violation of the first law of holes. Note: I have inserted a separate heading for Site Ban to reflect that the subject has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Sealioning boils my urine. Narky Blert (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support Reading through the discussion at ANI, their talk page and here, it is clear that Lincoln2020 has a poor understanding of wikipedia's policies and procedures, which is not too surprising or concerning from a relatively inexperienced editor. What is not acceptable though is their inability/unwillingness to heed the feedback they have received from numerous uninvolved editors and admins, and their repeatedly misrepresenting that feedback and escalating the disputes. Abecedare (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support, at this point it seems to either be sealioning, lack of WP:competence, or just outright trolling based on how much they are willing to seemingly maliciously twist others feedback. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support if the editor doesn't get a clue very fast. I advised them to WP:DROPTHESTICK at about 10am on Friday the 28/02 (UTC) and since then they've kept at it, not getting a clue. TarnishedPath^talk 00:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  The editors comment above "I will not back down from doing what's right", makes this extremely clear. TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Inquiry about COI Allegation

I would like more information from User:Lincoln2020 about their allegations that User:TarnishedPath and I may have conflicts of interest. After looking at their claim twice, and at the relevant policies again, I see two possible interpretations of their complaint.

The first is that they have correctly read the conflict of interest policy, and they think that TarnishedPath and I have external interests, either financial or other, that conflict with our neutrality. If so, I think that they should state what they think those external interests are. Otherwise they are casting aspersions.

The second is that they have misread the policy. Their reference to extensive mutual editing with involved parties which likely merits a neutrality check per WP:COI. seems to mean that they are confusing conflict of interest with a mere lack of neutrality. If so, I have at least one comment and at least one more question. First, neutral point of view applies to articles, not to editors. Maybe they actually mean that TarnishedPath and I are involved. Involved editors are allowed to participate in a discussion. My follow-up question then is what other policies and guidelines they have misread.

So, can User:Lincoln2020 identify the conflict of interest, or are they reading the policy incorrectly? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't forget "friends" in your reading. To be clear I said "likely merits a neutrality check", not "are violating COI".

That said, you've all come here, mostly from the same article, to intimidate and silence someone for filing a report. I think it's pretty clear what's happening, whether it's technically "COI" or not. Lincoln2020 (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me too, but I strongly suspect it's 180 degrees from what you believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Multiple people pointing out that your behavior is a problem does not mean they are colluding against you. It means your behavior is a problem and you're stubbornly refusing to see that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lincoln2020, you should be clear about the order of events. I didn't come here from that article. I made my way to the discussion at Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Moratorium on this nonsense. as consequence of this ill-advised discussion that you started. Not that it makes a substantive difference. TarnishedPath^talk 22:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

We're all friends here. "Friends" is assumed. —Alalch E. 01:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Well said. TarnishedPath^talk 02:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Lincoln202, first as others have said, I don't think you understand CoI. CoI here pretty much means an external CoI. Editors who might have a CoI here would be anyone involved in the Trump administration and I guess maybe also the Sheinbaum administration. Being very generous, perhaps you could say anyone who works for the US federal government or Mexican federal government and perhaps some of their respective state governments, and national level politicians and people who work for them have a CoI. And I guess anyone who works for the International Hydrographic Organization.

But as well attended as this RfC was, I fairly doubt anyone who commented actually had a CoI. If anyone did, it's most likely someone who works for the US federal government given the nature of the world. But frankly, that leads to a key point, even if you say anyone who works for the US federal government has a CoI, there's a fair chance that these editors were actually opposed to including the Gulf of American name in the lead i.e. arguing against their apparent CoI.

What you seem to be referring to is more akin to WP:Involved. Editors who've previously argued for or against the name change or DRN could be said to be involved to some extent. However this doesn't apply to everyone here. Also while the views of involved editors is often taken as slightly less important in deciding a consensus it's not generally ignored. And involvement is complicated especially in a sprawling case like this especially since most of your complaint is about the behaviour of some people in the dispute. Agreeing or not with the RfC doesn't really make you involved about complaints over behaviour in the RfC. Perhaps being good friends with Simonm223 would count as a form of involvement but simply having had some interactions with them before and agreeing with them at times definitely would not be. I'd note that in any case, while I did make a very minor comment, I've had very little involvement in any aspects of dispute until after you started to complain. Yes I'm aware of Simonm223 and I'm sure I've agree with them and disagreed with them at times but that doesn't make me involved with them.

Also while I closing the DRN would make an editor involved with regards to the closure of the DRN, it would not make them involved with regards to the overall dispute since closing the DRN is basically an "administrative" function. BTW, I think almost anyone with any experience here knows Robert McClenon has been extensively involved in DRN. In fact for a while for better or worse they moderated nearly all disputes. It looks like this has changed a bit, but in any case, there should be nothing surprising about Robert McClenon weighing in on a dispute which partly involved DRN. (And again whatever you want to claim about conduct vs content, your opening statement extensively referred to DRN and claimed the close was abusive.) This has nothing to do with any friendship with any other editors who are part of this dispute. And Robert McClenon wasn't even the one who closed the DRN so cannot even be considered to be involved in that regard.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The very wording of Robert's complaint against me raising legitimate concerns warrants the scrutiny. "because kangaroos don't swim in the Gulf of Mexico." - I'm not sure how anyone neutral can see this as appropriate in what has clearly become an attempt to silence any dissent here. Lincoln2020 (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

But the problem is you barely raised any legitimate concerns and chose to focus on things which weren't a concern like the appropriate closure of a DRN. And making such a bit deal over Robert McClenon's attempt at humour is frankly extremely lame. I'm not a fan of using humour unless I'm sure it's not going to cause confusion or annoyance, but if you can't stand a little humour then you can't survive Wikipedia. Especially ANI, given EEng's persistent efforts. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

My kangaroo comment was sarcastic humor. Lincoln2020 didn't like it. We often don't like being teased. When I was a boy, my father told me, many times, that if I was being teased or being poked fun at, I should ignore it rather than getting angry, because the other boy was trying to make me angry. I have struck through the kangaroo comment. I am not striking out anything else. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

A Novel and Unpleasant Interpretation of COI Policy

It just occurred to me what Lincoln2020 is saying about "friends", and why what he is saying would be a very unpleasant consequence of the conflict of interest policy if he were correct. He wrote: Don't forget "friends" in your reading. I wondered what he meant until I reread the policy. Then I saw that he is quoting from the first line of the conflict of interest policy, which says: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. He is completely wrong, because he is confused about what is meant by "contributing to Wikipedia", which in this context refers to editing articles about the family, friends, clients, employers, or companies. He is accusing us of having a conflict of interest because he seems to be saying that friends interacting with friends in discussions about maintenance of the encyclopedia are problematic, and raise questions about neutrality. If that interpretation were correct, it would mean that Wikipedia should have a negative atmosphere in which there would be very few friendships, because those are biasing. Maybe he would prefer that we all be enemies. Does that match with the possibility that he has no friends in Wikipedia, only enemies, and so he has no distracting connections?

He may also misread the neutral point of view policy, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia, but says that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. He is demanding a neutrality check on whether editors have worked together collaboratively. That may leave him in a very lonely place, but it doesn't actually mean that we should all be enemies. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be a perverse reading of those WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 07:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

My reading of the situation is that the user is a newbie who hasn't gotten a full grasp of editing with Wikipedia. Their earlier edits suggest they are don't fully grasp how the consensus policy works. (1, 2, 3) It likely doesn't help that they are using the tools for looking at the interactions between users and misunderstanding the results. (4) Even their DRN attempt seemed to misunderstand how it works and what it is and isn't used for as discussed above. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Politically provocative user page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is Mistletoe-alert (talk · contribs)'s user page acceptable? It appears to be deliberately provocational. I would think that WP:ATTACK and WP:POLEMIC would apply. Skyerise (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Can we open a separate noticeboard for people to report and investigate userpages where they suspect the guy has a dumb opinion about politics? Perhaps we could call it the House Anti-Wikipedian Userboxes Committee. jp×g🗯️ 10:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that already exists, it’s called miscellany for deletion where user pages or user boxes that are deemed attacking or overly political (among other things) can be reported and !voted upon, like AfD. There are so many obscure XfDs! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 21:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• That said I don't think their user page rises to the high level of needing community/admin action. People are allowed to be critical of Wikipedia on their user pages. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  The version of the user page when this ANI report was filed was certainly disruptive, [54], calling other editors and political opponents “low IQ”, “hating poor people and black people” etc. but all the attack or overly political for a userpage content has since been removed by Barkeep49 (thanks!). The current version looks fine now. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 21:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Addionally, the old version reported at the time of this ANI also contained a WP:BLP violation, saying something negative about a living politician. Frankly, I think a report was appropriate, but maybe a G10 speedy, as was eventually done and led to Barkeep removing the content, or an MfD would have been a better venue than ANI, but we were all new once and still understanding all the different noticeboards so it is okay! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 22:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  "BLP violation" != saying something negative about a living person.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  I forgot the operative word unsourced negative information. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 21:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

TurboSuperA+ closes

TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs) has closed several discussions recently, including ones on controversial topics (such as a close on Elon Musk's recent "gesture") or in areas where Turbo has limited experience (such as a CfD close, which Turbo called an "RfC" and then said I was being "semantic" when I pointed out that it was in fact a CfD), with one of them affecting a major aspect of policy (on the use of AI-generated images). Several editors have come to Turbo's talk page to complain about those closes, but Turbo has not really engaged with other editors' criticisms, instead claiming that those editors don't make sense and insisting that the closes are proper. Turbo has continued closing discussions notwithstanding several active (and some recently archived) discussions on their talk page criticizing their recent closes.

Relevant closes / user talk discussions:

• VPP RfC on AI-generated images / Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#Recent VP closure & Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#AI-generated imagery close
• Prayagraj RfC / Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#Eh!
• RfC on Elon Musk's gesture on the Nazi salute article / Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#Recent Nazi salute close
• CfD close / Special:PermanentLink/1277954773#Feb 25 CfD closure

I am hoping that Turbo will voluntarily stop closing discussions, but if a TBAN is needed, so be it. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Another close here: Special:PermanentLink/1278007349#RFC: Tornado Talk. This one declares a source GUNREL but then, based on one editor's sort of incoherent comment, says that it shouldn't be listed at RSPS. More of Turbo's closes are listed here: Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 39. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I came to this thread because I was pinged by User:Cinderella157 about another RFC close: [55] at Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. I haven't looked at the closes in depth, but I think that an editor with 1200 edits would be wise to avoid closing RFCs about policy at VPP or about contentious topics. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I stand by that close. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning that close. I was reporting that I was requested to look at that close, and I saw a lot of other closes that were questioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Nobody complained about the Tornado Talk close. I'm sure if you look at any close, you can find something to nitpick, nobody is perfect. Do you think the outcome of the Tornado Talk close was wrong? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The overall GUNREL outcome isn't necessarily wrong, but the closing statement is not an accurate summary and the "note" about not adding to RSP is based on a single comment, not consensus.
Editors also pointed out that Tornado Talk doesn't seem to put much care when sourcing content, giving an example of several images taken from Wikipedia where the given attribution is "Wikipedia". While this could only pertain to images, editors were unable to investigate since at least some of the website's content is behind a paywall with archiving protections. This suggests you did not read the comments by WeatherWriter or me in the responses to my !vote, since we both linked to instances where the site sources written content from Wikipedia. And only one editor brought up issues with paywalls, which obviously wasn't shared by others. JoelleJay (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

You !voted to classify Tornado Talk as GUNREL, so we're clear.

"This suggests you did not read the comments by WeatherWriter or me"

Except I did. In every discussion I have closed I have read every single comment. Your comment also said "Generally unreliable. This is an SPS, and none of the authors have PhDs in relevant areas."

The first sentence of my close says: "Editors have noted that Tornado Talk is a self-published resource, that the authors published on the website do not have any relevant credentials".

Again, I think if you look at any close you will find something was missed or left out or not perfectly written. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I am quoting While this could only pertain to images, editors were unable to investigate since at least some of the website's content is behind a paywall with archiving protections. This is patently untrue: two of us provided evidence that the Wikipedia citations extended to prose content, which was visible outside of the paywall. JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"the "note" about not adding to RSP is based on a single comment, not consensus."

"two of us provided evidence that the Wikipedia citations extended to prose content"

I'd just like to say that this is valid criticism. It seems to me that a most of the complaints on the closes are not so much about the outcome, but that I left out or added something that shouldn't be there, like the examples above. These are simple edits to do and had someone said those to me on my Talk page before this ANI, I would have just done it, it's not a big deal. One complaint was on the actual outcome of the close and the editor could have started a review of it.

But as I wrote to BugGhost, TBAN or not, I don't think I'll ever do another close. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I have to point out that none of my closes were brought to review before this ANI was started.

"Several editors have come to Turbo's talk page to complain about those closes,"

An involved editor who isn't happy the discussion wasn't closed their way. Is that how it works? Make a close, one editor complains, don't revert -> ANI?

"Turbo has not really engaged with other editors' criticisms"

That is a mischaracterisation, I engaged with all criticism. For example, I reverted this close[56], following this discussion[57]. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Closing contentious issues, while technically something that can be done by anybody, is generally best left to users with deep experience, if only because any such closes are likely to be overturned, wasting time. An account with hardly over 1k edits should not be closing such contentious issues, and it shows. This [58] close, for example, is plainly poorly articulated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I see your point. It's not that NAC closures aren't allowed but they are more likely to be contested, I think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that close, but I hope the review goes ahead. Because there are two complaints regarding that close: 1) there wasn't a consensus to ban medical-related AI-imagery, 2) there was a consensus to ban AI-generated images site wide. The two complaints are at odds with each other. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• I am entirely unimpressed by the way that TurboSuperA+ is responding here, with a mixture of stubbornness, belligerence, and evasion ("I stand by my close." - "Other closes are bad too." - "People didn't complain enough, so what's your problem?"), and demonstration of insufficient experience in both subject areas and closing procedures. Participating in high-senitivity mechanisms like centralized discussion closures requires first and foremost a constant awareness that you might be doing it wrong and a willingness to improve. I don't want to see anyone active there who treats it like a perk or a right that has to be defended. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  - "Other closes are bad too." - "People didn't complain enough, so what's your problem?")

  Why did you put that in quotation marks when I never said those things?

  "I stand by my close."

  Rather than focus on word choice, can you tell me what's wrong with the close in question? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

(If I was quoting you, you would be seeing talk-quote formatting - the above is paraphrasing.) My point is that when a discussion on a contentious issue is closed, I want to be able to depend on that close and the judgement behind it, not feel forced to dig through the entire discussion to double-check if the closer misinterpreted or misapplied something. Unless you are some kind of wunderkind, as a 3 month-old account you will not have the experience and judgement to reliable perform these closures. Multiple people have told you that, and expressed their preference that you develop a good deal more tenure on this site before you tangle in the area. Your response is to tell us, in as many words, that you personally like your closes (not suprising) and that other closes are not perfect either (duh). You are more interested in doing what you enjoy rather than in applying the expected caution and self-reflection that ensures that the project receives reliable service; and that is problematic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"the above is paraphrasing."

Not the first one. Also, adding "so what's your problem?" when I didn't say it is not fair, especially on an ANI topic, because it can bias people against me based on something I never actually said.

"My point is that when a discussion on a contentious issue is closed, I want to be able to depend on that close and the judgement behind it, not feel forced to dig through the entire discussion to double-check if the closer misinterpreted or misapplied something."

I reopened that RfC. If you look at the new close, the closer (an admin) also didn't give a summary of arguments. I am interested to see if @Voorts is happy with that close.

"as a 3 month-old account you will not have the experience and judgement to reliable perform these closures"

I don't think there is an account age requirement for closing. None of my closes went up for review (before this ANI), so how can you make the conclusion that they are bad/inadequate?

"Multiple people have told you that"

Rather than look at the existence of complaints, why haven't the complaints been evaluated? For example, on a close listed in the OP of this ANI thread[59] I received one complaint, but three public thanks. Another close[60] the complaint was from a participant in the discussion who argued for the opposite outcome of my close, they pinged[61] an editor, but they didn't come to my Talk page or start a close review.

"You are more interested in doing what you enjoy rather than in applying the expected caution and self-reflection"

That isn't true, because before this ANI was started, I had already reverted a close[62] following a discussion with an editor on my Talk page.[63]

"Your response is to tell us, in as many words, that you personally like your closes"

That's an unfair paraphrasing, because I have engaged with the arguments of every editor that mentions/responds to me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I am happy with Tamzin's close. Tamzin laid out what editors' arguments were, noted some areas of agreement and that the discussion needed more advertising across wiki, and then reopened it. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN unless Turbo voluntarily steps back for the time being. I really cannot understand why someone would voluntarily choose to close their first RfC on a highly contentious topic like Prayagraj (and then to quickly close several more discussions without heeding feedback, showing a clear disregard for other editors). Regardless, the incoherence of the Prayagraj close and subsequent discussions is unacceptable for discussion transparency; Turbo's clear unfamiliarity with which arguments should be considered stronger or weaker is also clearly shown at this close. As knowledge of strength of arguments is the essential foundation for any close, it is necessary for them to withdraw from closing until they gain sufficient experience. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  "like Prayagraj"

  Three editors have thanked me for that close, while one complained (now two, including you). Why haven't any of my closes been brought up for review? There was ample time. I think it is unfair to lump together separate complaints from single, involved editors in an attempt to present a "problematic" pattern of behaviour.

  My responses have been civil and I tried to argue for my position. If there is disagreement, why not open a close review? Why jump to ANI and demand a TBAN as if my edits are disruptive or I'm vandalising RfCs? When all I did was clear the backlog on the WP:CR page because I saw no one else was doing it. Even now, an RfC I reopened a few days ago hasn't been closed yet.

  If any editor uninvolved in the RfC came to my Talk page and said "hey, I think I can close that RfC better" I would have reverted in a heartbeat. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  The problems with your closes are present no matter who complains. People have jumped to ANI because you jumped to poorly closing several RfCs in the last few days; there is no point opening several close reviews when the common denominator is clear. Why is there a backlog at WP:CR? Because properly closing lengthy discussions is hard, and doing discussions justice requires serious thought. I'd recommend less impatience in your future endeavours. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"CfD close / Special:PermanentLink/1277954773#Feb 25 CfD closure"

Why is this in the OP when I self-reverted that close two days ago (two days before this ANI)?[64] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from IPA & PIA. These actions are clearly unacceptable WP:BADNAC. I agree with AirshipJungleman29, whether done in good or bad faith, one thing is clear: Turbo is inexperienced and not familiar with the policies. NXcrypto Message 12:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from closing anything. I think that at this point even a voluntary commitment to stop wouldn't be enough to avoid a TBAN - it'd be hard to lend it credence given the degree of refusal to accept criticism in the replies on their talk page and above, combined with the way they've aggressively sought out things to close despite their obvious inexperience. BADNAC point 1 says that a non-admin closure is inappropriate when The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial. Several of these either fall under contentious topics or are obviously controversial; the AI one in particular would have made even an experienced admin hesitate given the topic's history here. --Aquillion (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could avoid issuing a formal TBAN. Turbo, I know it's never pleasant to be told that you don't have enough experience to do something, but as a user with less than four months of experience, your best course of action is to listen to the various veteran editors in this thread who are urging you to get more experience before making further closes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think we can avoid a TBAN if editor volunteers to stay away from closes for awhile until they have a better understanding. I'm not familiar with all the closes, but a few should be reviewed and reclosed by an editor who is more experienced. The no consensus close on the Nazi Salute RFC still doesn't make sense and the closer's responses showed a clear lack of basic understanding of policy. The result of that RFC doesn't really matter, but the close is still very poor. Nemov (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Agree that all the closes should be overturned. There's too many issues to tackle them one by one. Nemov (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tban unless they overturn all of their closures and even after that, they need to clarify and make sure this will never happen in any future. But so far their responses have been entirely unimpressive. Mr.Hanes Talk 13:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. I closed a lot of discussions as a non-admin, including some consequential RfCs, so I don't buy into the line of argument that non-admins shouldn't close discussions just because they might be controversial or contested. That said, editors closing such discussions must show that they have a solid grasp of not just relevant policies and guidelines, but also norms of closing discussions. If you don't have those competences, your closes will always be suspect to the community. The issue here is not just the outcome of Turbo's closes, but their lack of understanding of relevant PAGs, their failure to adequately explain the reason for their close, and seeming super-votes. Turbo: I don't doubt you're acting in good faith here, but you just don't have the chops to be closing the kinds of discussions you're closing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Also support overturning all of Turbo's closes so that we don't need to figure out which of them to bring to a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tban; dissatisfied with their reply [65], we don't need determine a good or bad NAC by your thanks log [66]. This really means nothing as all of 3 were heavily involved in the Prayagraj RfC and that too the "winning side".Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 15:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support minimum TBAN. This isn't new behavior from Turbo. This is an ongoing trend of refusal to listen, that has long since passed the point where it's become a competence to edit issue. It's not even an issue strictly limited to NAC anymore -- the sheer unwillingness to listen to anyone, the Dunning-Kruger issues with their understanding of policy, and the fightiness on every single issue indicates that we're likely just going to be here again in the future. A TBAN from any kind of discussion closure AND a TBAN from all CTOPS and GS areas is the absolute minimum here. IMO we should be asking whether this editor is ever going to be capable of participating on this project. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  You need to back up your claims with diffs, particularly when suggesting such an extreme sanction as a ban from all CTOPs. In any event, maybe a TBAN from closing discussions will prompt Turbo to change their ways. Let's give people a chance before throwing the whole library at them. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't believe the claims I'm making are any different than those made by others here which are already well satisfied with diffs, as well as the existence of this very thread in which all of this behavior is demonstrated, to support my assertion that Turbo is unwilling to listen and lacks understanding of policy. Perhaps I just have a lower tolerance level for this behavior than some other admins do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't reviewed their other edits. They might be making perfectly fine edits in mainspace and adequately participating in discussions, other than the ones they've closed. I wouldn't want to impose such a harsh sanction or consider whether someone shouldn't be here at all without more evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from closures considering both their behavior here (continuously refusing to see a problem with their editing) and some interactions at WP:ITNC that lead me to believe they should gain some more experience around the project before delving into more sensitive/controversial areas and actions. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Topic-Ban from all closures for six months. Part of the problem is the number of closures in contentious topic areas and on policy questions. It is not enough to close discussions correctly. It is also necessary to be seen as closing the discussions correctly. The closes in question were not brought to close review because no one of them had been seen as clearly wrong, although some of them were being discussed, but then the number of closes that required a very experienced editor (which Turbo is not) was seen as excessive. Also, although they did discuss their closures, they only addressed the closures individually, and sometimes but not always defensively, and did not address the issue of whether they were qualified to be making each closure or so many closures. This seems to be an editor who doesn't know that they aren't ready to make controversial closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support T-ban and overturn or re-open all of their problematic closures. That said we must not discourage any newcomer volunteers, because we need them to close the backlog gaps. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support t-ban at a minimum. The response to feedback is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Star Mississippi 02:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• I would like to pose that this is not only a closures related issue. See this archived discussion about an RfC that TurboSuper tried to open barely a week after there was a clear lack of a consensus to add the US into that infobox. They did withdraw the RfC eventually... but they didn't even follow WP:BEFORE for starting it, did not even begin to address the reasons for the opposition in the prior RfC, did not make any attempt to notify people who had participated in the prior discussion (or that talkpage that discussion was held on), and ultimately said It doesn't matter to me whether US is listed as an ally or a co-belligerent when opening the RfC - implying "as long as they're listed". I'm hesitant to call this intentional POV pushing - because it could just as easily be an over-eager editor. But I agree with others that there is a big issue of competence with respect to contentious topics - and with dropping the stick when something did not go their way (rather than trying to rehash the issue barely a week later). I don't think there's any precedent from a topic ban from all contentious topics... but I'd honestly really like to see a voluntary committment from the editor that they will spend time working on articles outside of contentious topics to become more experienced at discussing, accepting that consensus will not always be in their desired outcome, etc. before they return to contentious topics.
  Like others who have commented here, I do not see their responses here as giving any indication that they actually understand what they have been doing wrong, much less that they have any intent on trying to slow down. They first tried to defend their actions based on being right, and I see at best a cursory agreement that they don't mind their closes being reverted. That does not address the problem, much less show that the editor understands it. All of this considered... I do not think a topic ban from closing discussions goes far enough. If the editor is not willing to make a voluntary commitment to stay away from contentious topics until they are more experienced, in addition to either a voluntary or mandated ban from closing discussions, I would support indefinite block under competence is required. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  For clarity, oppose a time limited topic ban from closing discussions. There is no harm in it being an indefinite ban, with the user required to demonstrate to the community that they understand how to edit and discuss in compliance with policies and guideline before they close another discussion in the future. That all said, I still believe this is not solely a problem with over-eager closing. There is a problem with this editor being able to contribute to contentious topics (especially) without trying to push their own POV into articles. That's evidenced by the situation I point out - they disagreed with an RfC outcome, so rather than accepting it and moving on, they tried to create a new RfC with a slightly different question, on a different page, to get their desired outcome. If a topic ban from any contentious topic is not in the question, then an indefinite ban on closing discussions will protect editors from having to deal with this in the future until they show they understand how to constructively contribute to contentious discussions on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• I just want to say any suggestion for a CIR indef is completely over the top and not required here. I also think that we can avoid a TBAN here if TurboSuperA+ goes on the record saying they won't close any discussions for a long time. We need people who are willing to close discussions, and making mistakes isn't a crime. Looking at the closes, personally I think these are just the hallmarks of someone who means well and is putting in effort to help, but lacks experience. However, closing discussions is not the right place to learn-through-mistakes - so really Turbo I'd urge you to take the criticism here seriously and publicly commit to not closing anything for a good long time (at least a couple of years) - I think this would be the only route for you avoiding a TBAN here. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  TBAN or not, I don't think I am closing another discussion ever again. I haven't closed any since people started complaining on my Talk page. I mean, sure I made some mistakes, but that could have been handled through a close review.

  Some editors are even calling for me to be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. And for what? Did I vandalise pages? No. I genuinely tried to help.

  I'm gonna log off from Wikipedia for a while. Sorry for the trouble I caused. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think that the TBan that there's a clear consensus to impose, here, should be for a specific fixed period such as six months.—S Marshall T/C 10:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the topic ban should be for six months, and have added for six months to my statement above. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support T-ban and overturn or re-open all of their closures. Their closure of this RfC is also problematic. Dympies (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support Tban, and please re-open all of their closures so we can save time from requesting a review. I have been waiting for their response [67], but it seems like they are determined to stick to their stance and don't want to heed others' suggestions. I don't want them to get Tban'd, but unfortunately, their WP:IDHT behavior has left us with no other way to handle this. – Garuda ^Talk! 15:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• I came here because i was following a discussion in Prayagraj where consensus was not likely for supporting the proposal. He did it anyway and now i found this discussion of him being topic banned. I request admins to please revert that close and undo the edit made by him in Prayagraj article. 2402:8100:29C4:8550:1AFB:3F2C:228B:8256 (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN I think as they've said they are not going to do any more closures then we don't need to topic ban them. You need a large amount of experience to close some of the most contentious areas in the project - and I don't think a non-admin should have touched a lot of those. However I think they know that now. Secretlondon (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive edits despite partial protection of "Gladstone Institutes" page

On Feb 12 2025, subsequent to partial protection of the "Gladstone Institutes" Gladstone Institutes page., User:Soscholze made substantial edits to the Controversy section of the Gladstone Institutes page, deleting 3,143 characters and rewriting the entire section, eliminating content sourced from reliable public sources. These changes seem to downplay publicly available U.S. government material while promoting a narrative favorable to one side in violation of WP:UNDUE, and these edits do not align with Wikipedia’s neutrality standards. The edit was marked as "minor" however it was not a minor edit which appears to be a previous tactic of this Soscholze that they were warned about in the past. This tactic could be seen as deceptive and a stealth reversion and violates multiple wikipedia policies.

Furthermore, in the edit summary, Soscholze stated: “Updated Controversy section to reflect current information,” but this is misleading since the edits removed more recent citations and a significant amount of sourced content (3,143 characters), including newspaper quotes from the U.S. Congress. Instead, the section now primarily references older press releases from the Gladstone Institutes, which appear to introduce bias WP:UNDUE. This suggests cherry-picking of sources and placing undue weight on a particular point of view, which would violate WP:NPOV and WP:COI as well as WP:UNDUE.

Previous edits to the page in Dec 2024 and Jan 2025 (see [Institutes&action=history|history]) violated WP:V and were made from an incognito IP address in close geographical proximity to the location of the subject institute and were unsourced and unverifiable.

For example, on Dec 19 2024 and Jan 18 2025 incognito IP address 2600:1700:2f70:5470 inserted unverifiable material that violated promoted a specific viewpoint. Another user Anne Drew [Drew] removed these WP:V violations on Dec 29 2024. However, they were subsequently re-added on Jan 18 2025 by incognito IP address 2600:1700:2f70:5470 with the edit summary stating: "Outlining the full and accurate account of the events, including all relevant context and details, records such as emails are available for review upon inquiry. " This appears to violate WP:V

On 12 Feb 2025, I reverted these edits that violated WP:V and removed the unsourced content (again) and I updated the section to include more recent sourced material including a Dec 2024 US Congressional report (publicly available) and a concurrent newspaper article that contained quotes from multiple US Congressmen both Democrat and Republican (bipartisan). I then requested page protection.

Soscholze subsequently completely rewrote the section to remove all citations to the US Congressional letters and instead inserted a quote from the subject institution in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI as well as WP:UNDUE.

I have initiated a discussion with Soscholze on the user's talk page but there has been no response. EdJohnston [talk:EdJohnston] has also initiated a discussion but there has been no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistleblower23 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Remember: you must notify users you bring to the ANI noticeboard. I will do so shortly. Departure– (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This strikes me as an overblown content dispute. The editor Soscholze (talk · contribs) hasn't participated in discussion but they're also an infrequent editor; this whole issue really strikes me as a matter of Requests for page protection. Remember WP:SILENTCONSENSUS - editors that don't respond might as well agree, and if you have content-based reasons to revert another user's contributions on a user who isn't responding to consensus building or discussion in general, you can fix them yourself. Further relevant discussion to this dispute can be found at User talk:EdJohnston; you really might want to assume good faith and leave this to the article's talk page instead of bringing this straight here - some of these complaints really seem to not assume good faith i.e. This tactic could be seen as deceptive and a stealth reversion and violates multiple wikipedia policies. Departure– (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, this wasn't discussed enough with the user. In a case like this, I would think the next step would be just to revert the user's edits and attempt to further discuss with the user on their talk page instead of bringing them straight to AN/I for an edit made over two weeks ago. Note that aside from Soscholze's potentially disruptive edit there hasn't been any disruptive editing or any editing at all since the page was protected. Also, your previous attempts to discuss with Soscholze seem less than civil - Hello Soscholze. Please see a complaint about your edits that was filed on my talk page - this was the only attempt to contact the user directly. Referring to a content dispute as a "complaint" and going to another editor phrasing edits that very well could have been in good faith as a complaint instead of discussing the disagreeable edits with Soscholze first isn't the most productive towards Wikipedia's mission of collaboration. Also, one more thing - the user made two edits to Gladstone's article, so I think you really shouldn't have brought it to ANI instead of just reverting it or discussing it. Silent consensus would have won the day - given the user's inactivity, if you just reverted the apparently problematic edits, either they would have an issue that could be further discussed or they wouldn't respond at all. An ANI post is a pretty big fuss to start for a single series of edits. Departure– (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid response. I will do as you say and revert the edits and see what happens. Given the wayu the edit was performed (two edits) it is not trivial to revert but I will go back and copy and paste.

Also, are you perhaps referring to User:EdJohnston and not me regarding being "less than civil"? I apologize for having to point this out but, respectfully, you are mistaken; I did not use the "complaint" language with Soscholze, it was EdJohnston who did that. Given the multiple back and forth edits that appear to me to be warring I thought it was appropriate to bring this issue here. I apologize if I overstepped but I am struggling to see how I did. Whistleblower23 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I was wrong the undo is now available and was trivial. Thanks again for your input and guidance. Much appreciated. Whistleblower23 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Neither you nor Soscholze should be editing this as WP:ARBECR applies. Can someone give the appropriate CTOP alerts as I'm on mobile. Also sourced to "publicly available U.S. government material" is generally a sign that the material was correctly removed and especially when it relates to living person as material should generally be sourced to reliable secondary sources. We shouldn't be relying on press releases either however if the article is using such material it is better to keep it out until someone can fix it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't take the time to see the diffs, and I didn't see this had to do with accusations of antisemitism. Yeah, unregistered and inexperienced editors aren't allowed to edit those topics and no discussions brought it up, so maybe this does need ECP protection. I'll go ask at RFPP. Departure– (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Given this admission, perhaps some sort of small apology for all the strident remarks above might be the civil thing to do. Whistleblower23 (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I should clarify "this" refers to stuff you're both either adding and removing since it directly refers to aspects of the recent war. It's fine to edit about the institute itself if it doesn't touch the conflict. It's possible you can also edit about the "Jewish nose" allegation and handling provided it doesn't touch the conflict. Ditto with any other allegations surrounding antisemitism and its handling that don't touch on the conflict. But again you'd need to find coverage in reliable secondary sources rather than using Congressional reports etc. This no different from when we exclude material if the only source is a court judgment be it an appeals court judgment or whatever. If you want to argue the appeals court judgment is a secondary source because it contains an analysis of the earlier courts findings etc whatever, it remains an inappropriate source. Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I am unclear why you reverted this to Soscholze's edit and not the Anne Drew or Souporsonic. Based on your rationale shouldn't it be the original and not Soscholze? Also can you explain why Congressional reports are not appropriate? The Congressional reports all have secondary sources in citation 43 that is currently cited by the Soscholze edit you left intact so it is unclear to me why the only thing left in the press release from the subject institute. Thank you Whistleblower23 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarifym, the initial Congressional letter from Nov 2024 announcing the investigation is clearly a primary source but the Congressional Report issued in Dec 2024 appears to be a secondary source as it is an analysis of the allegations in the letter. Whistleblower23 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call the Congressional Report, using it as the source is inappropriate. If the only source you have is the congressional report then clearly no one cared about these claims so nor do we. And I reverted to Soscholze's version because I was on mobile and it seemed to be the simplest thing to do. Having looking more carefully it looks to be the correct thing to do. It seems to have been the only version which removed all inappropriately source material. Despite your persistent claim it's using press releases this is false. It's using what the Jewish Insider reported about this investigation, which is so far the only source anyone has presented which seems appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Please further note that this article does NOT relate to a living person, so your statement above "especially when it relates to living person" does not seem applicable. Whistleblower23 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Deepak Srivastava is a living person. BLP applies to every article and every namespace on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The verdict of User:Nil Einne in the thread on the Gladstone Institutes talk page appears correct and I agree with his removing some of the material on grounds of bad sourcing. I had previously semiprotected the Gladstone Institutes article which is probably why User:Whistleblower23 chose to approach me on February 20 with a complaint of disruptive editing by Soscholze. Nil Einne's issuing of WP:CTOP notices to both parties appears to settle the immediate issues. Now that the two parties are notified, I hope that neither of them will edit again regarding the antisemitism allegations, since neither of them is extended confirmed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

JosueBitimunu not discussing controversial railway changes

• JosueBitimunu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As per WP:ENGAGE, I am requesting via this venue that JosueBitimumu please discuss all their changes to railway articles in Europe that others have seen as highly controversial. This user has not discussed their changes despite multiple requests to do so on their own Talk page, which appears to be the only one they've ever used. The more recent example is an effort to edit war the definition of the Stourbridge Town branch line to include light rail despite known evidence against this definition. Jalen Barks (Woof) 17:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Indef'd from mainspace until they respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Bosomba Amosah reported by User:Kwamikagami

This is a report on edit-warring, but we were told there that it should be filed here

Page: Akan language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bono dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bono people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Twi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bosomba Amosah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple comments on Bosomba's talk page, such as [70] [71], now deleted; plus discussions at Talk:Twi etc

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [72]

Comments:

@Austronesier: and I have reverted Bosomba multiple times for the same edits on the same articles, for failing to respect his own sources. We have both explained to him that he needs to follow sources, and we've gotten thanks from other editors for doing so. Bosomba has conceded a few points, but it's like pulling teeth. He has provided a couple of nice sources in Dolphyne, and I now use those sources almost exclusively for my edits, and because of this I have abandoned some of my earlier positions, which were based on less reliable sources. Yet Bosomba only follows Dolphyne where she agrees with him, and ignores her where she doesn't. For example, he insists that Bono is a literary dialect of Akan even though Dolphyne says it isn't even written, and AFAICT he has provided no sources that the situation has changed since she wrote [which was decades ago; the situation could easily have changed]. He also insists that Bono is a single dialect; Dolphyne says that the 'Bono dialect' is actually a cluster of dialects, with as much internal diversity as other clusters of Akan dialects that have individual identities, that is, are considered to be separate dialects. Bosomba's argument is that since Dolphyne calls it the 'Bono dialect' before going on to explain that it's actually a dialect cluster, 'dialect' takes precedence and we need to follow that. I don't know if that's obstinacy or incompetence, but it's a refusal to follow his own sources. [There are other inaccuracies that he repeatedly restores with his reverts, but I don't know which are intentional.] The other major contention is that Twi is named afteer a Bono king named Twi. Bosomba has provided two sources. One does not say what he says it does, and he adamantly refuses to provide a quotation from it that would support his position. [In case we both missed where it supports him.] The other source he does quote from, but neither of us have access to it, and given Bosomba's apparent incompetence, we don't trust that he's quoting it accurately -- especially since he insists on keeping the first source despite it failing verification. There are other issues, such as the definition/scope of the name 'Twi', where he will only accept one definition, but I haven't had the time to delve into the sources for that.

— kwami (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

My edits conform to Wikipedia and it is cited with reliable sources. As I am open to discussion for consensus, I initiated for discussion on Kwami’s talk page to solve our differences with respect to his edits as seen here [73],[74]. However, as I pointed to him on a notice of edit warring, disruptive edits and misrepresentation of sources as seen here [75],[76],[77]. He deleted these without even a feedback and called me names. He believes his edits are perfect and therefore I shouldn’t question or look into it.

To the next issue, Akan language consist dialects of Asante, Akyem, Brong/Bono, Wasa, Fante, Akuapem etc as seen here [[78]]p.12 The reason for the classification with neutral name ‘Akan’ is because they are all mutually intelligible to each other, as seen here[[79]]p.9 [[80]]p.88 Of all the dialects of Akan and as arranged from the oldest to the newest; Brong and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. Brong is the oldest in that respective order to Fante the newest as seen here [[81]]p.18 Hence the notes and the clade of the Akan language. Despite this, Kwami is claiming Brong and Wasa are not mutually intelligible with the other dialects and as a result a separate language, even though we have both discussed and concluded they are Akan and mutually intelligible with each other on Bono dialect talk page as seen here Talk:Bono dialect.

Also, per reliable sources, Bono is a dialect of Akan as seen here[[82]]p.88 Dolphyne was specific on the title/heading and also at the first paragraph of the introductory passage. It never said it was a dialect cluster of Akan. Also [[83]]p.12 points out to Akan language whose dialects are…Brong/Abron…etc. Again it never said dialect cluster. The marked differences which Kwami points out as dialect cluster are found in all the dialects of Akan yet each is called a dialect but not dialect cluster. So one would question why is Kwami fixated on Brong alone as a dialect cluster.

Again Twi is a common name to Akan without Fante as seen here [[84]],[[85]]p.8-11 Despite all these, Kwami is claiming Twi is a common name to Akuapem and Asante alone, and additionally using a fake reference too. This is a mere representation. He also added Asante and Akuapem are the only standard Twi without any reliable. He is claiming superiority of these two dialects over the rest of Twi. His editor friend Austronesier sided with Kwami, I told both of them to provide reliable source for their claims and they couldn’t.

Lastly, the name “Twi” is named after a Bono king. It is cited with reliable source as seen [[86]], [[87]]p.7 This is also the quoted passage from the second source “The oral traditions of Bono-Techiman suggests ‘Twi’ or ‘Tsi’ was a Bono king whose language was referred to as Twi’s language interpreted in Akan as Twi kasa. ‘Twi’ is an important name in the Techiman royal enclave.”

Despite all these, they are claiming not having access to the book, and want to clear such relevant information. Hence my decision to prevent such vandalism Bosomba Amosah (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Kindly scroll through to the cited pages of the sources for much clarification Bosomba Amosah (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism has a very limited definition on Wikipedia. A content dispute, no matter how acrimonious or intractable, is not vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted on the content dispute Bosomba Amosah (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by LukeJolly3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User being reported: LukeJolly3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages:

• Baby Shark's Big Show! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • 29 January 2025
  • 16 February 2025
  • 21 February 2025 - edit summary: "Guys, STOP PROVING THAT BABY SHARK IS CANCELLED!!! Y'all are not patient! The show still has 4-hour specials!"
  • 28 February 2025 - edit summary: "STOP IT!!!!!!!!"
• PJ Masks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • 21 February 2025 - edit summary: "Stop It Bloomykal!"
• Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • 20 February 2025 - edit summary: "I feel like it is over."
  • 21 February 2025 - edit summary: "Come on Nisf! It's not even March yet. We're getting there at some point."
  • 23 February 2025 - edit summary: "@BaldiBasicsFan Leave it alone! We're just waiting until the last 2 episodes of MGADD have aired"
  • 25 February 2025
• List of programs broadcast by the Nick Jr. Channel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • 22 February 2025
  • 23 February 2025 - edit summary: "@Magitroopa Both Bossy Bear and Santiago finished being on Nick Jr. but not Baby Shark because the 4-hour specials haven't aired yet and it is currently on hiatus."
  • 24 February 2025
  • 25 February 2025 - edit summary: "STOP REVERTING MY EDIT!"
  • 28 February 2025 - edit summary: "STOP IT!!!!!!

LukeJolly3 has been engaging in disruptive editing across a few children's TV show articles (started in November 2024 but majority of the disruptive behavior was this past month; I've included a few diffs but their edit history shows it is more expansive); they are mostly focused on insisting shows are either still airing or are finished without including sources. Multiple editors (including myself) have warned them about this disruptive editing. They have now escalated to creating/editing user pages (see User:Bloommykal27 & User:Poopdecktheoverlord) claiming these editors should be blocked; they also came to my talk page & asked me to "block those bad guys reverting my edits". I think at this point LukeJolly3 needs to be blocked in order to stop the disruptive editing. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: I notified Bloommykal27 & Poopdecktheoverlord since I mentioned them in my report; other editors have since blanked the attacks on their user pages. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC) Updated diffs above to include ongoing behavior after they received notice of this discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

NOOOOOO!!!! DON'T BLOCK ME!!! LukeJolly3 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've indeffed as this is either trolling or a plain lack of understanding how to interact with people. I've also deleted their user page vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AHI-3000

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• AHI-3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Uh... i have never seen anything like this before. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, well it's different. I've removed the offensive part. If the user doesn't want to communicate, that's up to them. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It's very unusual for a 9 year old account with 30,000+ edits to post such a strong "Go away!" message. I mean, they got through almost an entire decade here editing like everyone else. But I'm sure there are plenty of editors here who want to focus on content creation and maintenance and don't like the social aspects of the project. Unless problems emerge, I guess live and let live. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Despite this announcement, SergeWoodzing, you still have to post a notification of this discussion on their User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! Will try to find how that's done. I am not frequently here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It's posted at the top of this page and any time you make an edit to the page, there is a message there as well. It's brightly colored so it's hard to miss. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll note that an editor promising do not expect me to ever...participate in any...discussions seems against the while "communication is not optional" thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes although IMO given the editor seems stressed justified or not, it might be a case of just leaving it and seeing if the editor does fail to respond when needed. There's also the always tricky question of how to handle WP:LOUTSOCK concerns surrounding their editing which I guess is with Special:Contributions/162.192.142.210. Nil Einne (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Even though I didn't want to talk, well I guess I have to talk here. Is there anything else that I need to know? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything actionable here. AHI-3000 has posted a warning that (despite its hostile tone) can be interpreted merely as requesting no frivolous communication, and yet when specifically asked to communicate here has demonstrated a willingness to do so. What more do we need? We can't and shouldn't be the tone police for everyone's user pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, my concerns addressed, we're all good if anyone wants to close this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP user bulk changing date formats with automation apparently

This user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.74.153.10

Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

At first glance the IP's contributions appear to be in line with MOS:MILFORMAT. Is there something wider? Nthep (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

That MOS says:

For the United States this is MDY (July 4, 1976)

For most other English-speaking countries it is DMY (4 July 1976).

The user is converting all those to DMY, and look at their contributions. It's all US-related stuff, and the user's IP is EU based. The changes go against the MOS.

Also, I thought IPs can't use automatic tools? There's no way a human is hand editing all those that fast. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person, you missed where that section goes on to say However, in certain topic areas, it is customary to use a date format different from the usual national one. For example, articles (including biographical articles) on the modern US military should use DMY dates, in accordance with US military usage. Schazjmd (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The user is doing a lot more than biographical articles and certainly not "Modern" articles. George Patton and Iwo Jima for instance.

Is there any plausible way this person did all this by hand and without automation/bots in like 85 seconds?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima&diff=prev&oldid=1278131838
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1278131700
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_military_and_prostitution_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=1278131670
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_B._Liversedge&diff=prev&oldid=1278131580

Is that ok? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

They got blocked for editwarring for 24h. Polygnotus (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It is possible they could open several tabs at once and insert the template "use dmy" in the articles, and then go back through the tabs and click publish changes. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The geolocation of the IP and the highly unusual choice of focus subject make me very strongly suspect that this is Marginataen evading a recent community ban on them that I proposed, so perhaps a block longer than 24 hours might be wise ... but how much longer I'm not sure, because of how dynamic the related IP addresses seem to be. Graham87 (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Jake Wartenberg:, the original blocking admin: they've continued to evade their community ban. Graham87 (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

User:23r2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 23r2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

23r2 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted unsupported information to Kuril Islands, likely hoaxes. See for example this edit where they add unsourced text about a name used by the "self-proclaimed country". Now they are move warring. They have received plenty of warnings already for disruptive editing and adding unsourced information. Mellk (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Here they also created an article citing Reddit (now nominated for AfD). Mellk (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple IPs edit warring

• International Cricket Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • 49.207.210.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 223.178.212.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 49.207.193.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 223.178.209.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 223.178.210.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• International cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • 42.110.161.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 42.110.163.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 42.110.160.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 223.178.209.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 223.178.210.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of these pages are currently being reconstructed in hopes of getting them to featured material. But, these IPs disagreeing with the changes keep reverting to the old version which has multiple problems including, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, MOS:COLOR, MOS:ACCESS etc. First three IPs only did it once, but the last 2 IPs did it on both pages; although the former IP only did it once to each page, but the latter IP has been engaged in edit warring with multiple reverts on both pages. All these 8 IPs could be the same user (based on the similarity between the edits they made to these pages).

• AllOnTheLine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Coincidental? not sure, anyhow this editor has also done similar edits to both these pages. Also, before these begun they actually asked me about the old tables and I told them they've been revamped [88] but, regardless they also performed the similar edits here. Maybe a WP:CheckUser could reveal more. Vestrian24Bio 03:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

223.178.210.112 had also been warned by an admin (Daniel Case) and 42.110.160.5 had been temporarily blocked (by Ad Orientem) as well. Vestrian24Bio 03:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

A newly registered user (1 day old) posts fake "results" of sports matches from the future

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Inherme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new user with an account that is only 1 day old, has made dozens of edits that are either:

• Completely fabricated "results" of sports matches that have not even started at the time of the edit; or,
• Future movies that very likely do not exist (and never will), and in any case without any supporting reference

Here are some examples:

• Fake results of sports matches
  • Miami Heat
  • Chicago Bulls
  • Detroit Pistons
  • New York Rangers
• Fake upcoming movies
  • "Colombia" is supposed to come out in 2027
  • "Argentina" is supposed to come out in 2026

From what I saw in the list of this user's contributions, I believe all edits should be treated as suspect. No edit was caught by an anti-vandalism bot.

I reverted some of the outright nonsense as I came across them, but because I am an IP user and I lack access to some of the powerful automated tools, it is very inefficient for me to deal with the edits one at a time. Perhaps someone who can use those tools may be able to help out. 2001:569:5161:2700:B932:DC0C:C427:103A (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's just vandalism, and they carried on doing it after a warning. I've indefinitely blocked them and deleted the fake articles. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Beyondprovidedlimply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Persistent creating of half-baked articles not meeting Wikipedia standards for referencing or notability. Has ignored talk page notices for previously deleted articles and has ignored requests/advice regarding creating articles and using the Draft space. Editing behaviour has not changed. Has been blocked at Commons for uploading multiple unfree files. Possible sock block evasion, see here. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mahmood2028

Mahmood2028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is insisting on changing the description of official languages at Somalia, against consensus at Talk:Somalia#Official languages. They are also repeatedly editing while logged out despite this being pointed out on their talk page, as well as repeatedly posting blank edit requests at Talk:Somalia, so this may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue as much as anything. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if it's a veiled WP:NLT but the very minimum it sounds like a nationalist WP:OWN problem on the editor in question. [89]. Borgenland (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Also WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA by their IP sock [90]. Borgenland (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked the account just now for edit warring, and I'll get the IPs in a moment. I think I'm just deferring the problem and not solving it, but hope springs eternal. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I got each of the three IPs separately out of a probably forlorn hope that this would increase the chances they find the unblock notice and manage to talk to someone directly about this, but for future reference the range that would have got them all is 2a02:3037:260::/44. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Vandalbot help

Hi everyone. Some of you may know that there's been a vandalbot around for the past few days, and they're particularly active right now. Please see my last few hundred contribs. I've been on top of them this morning but I am now stepping away from the keyboard. If you're interested please visit this recent changes, or an RC page of your preference, and the vandalbot IPv4s should soon start jumping out at you. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This event is still happening, with the bot switching to a new IP about every 2 minutes as the previous IP gets blocked. I have been working on this for a while but have to stop now, so could could someone please take over now? Thanks. Diannaa (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it ought to be possible for a filter to be set up to catch this - are there any clever edit filter managers watching this who could take a look? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I expect someone has had a look, and the vandalbot might be seen occasionally appearing at Special:AbuseLog. The vandalbotter is actively operating and changing the bot's MO, and probably also watching this page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

User talk:114.73.240.53 - prolific incorrect edit, multiple warnings

• 114.73.240.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP address is serving the single and unusual purpose of removing the second surname of the Australian soccer player Adam Bugarija. The behaviour started on 25 February [91]. A dynamic IP, unlikely to be someone else, then repeats the edit on 26 February [92]. The standard IP then repeats on 27 February. [93]. I leave a user talk message [94] and successfully ask for pending changes provisions, as I can't risk getting WP:3RR even if it is correcting someone's name.

Even though I then moved the reference NAMED AFTER Bugarija's full name right next to his full name, the IP has returned THREE times today. [95] [96] [97] The IP has received three warnings today, all citing a different policy: [98] Disruption, blanking and BLP.

I'm at a loss to why someone can be so committed to the same unexplained and incorrect edit, on someone who has played only 500 minutes of professional sport. [99] I don't know what the consequence should be, as this person's IP address could refresh any day. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) A WP:edit filter (see WP:EFR) targeting this specific edit might be a tidier solution than WP:page protection. Narky Blert (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Iruka13 (2nd report)

• Iruka13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hi, I have de problem with this User Iruka13 re-edited the template {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} in this logo ,after restore this photo on the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#File:Old logo Ecological Movement of Venezuela (2008).png i edited the infobox (and removed the tag) but now User:Iruka13 reverted the tag,please blocked or warned this user (Google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The admin who undeleted the logo provided specific instructions when responding please use it for a justified reason, otherwise it will delete again in a week. Non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. Iruka13 is disputing that the non-free content criteria are met. The deletion tag specifically states do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded so Iruka13 is correct in restoring the tag. If you want to dispute the deletion, it should be contested on the file's talk page which is also noted on the deletion template. Note: Simply using an old logo in the article body without any sourced critical commentary would not meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

AbchyZa22, any time you bring an editor to a noticeboard regarding a complaint, you have to notify them on their User talk page. There are announcements about this requirement on this page and the edit notice. Please do this as soon as possible. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I have notified Iruka13. Polygnotus (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Polygnotus. We also don't block on demand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liz @Polygnotus@Whpq:With regarding this,this logo i searched from a CNE website (from a web archive) this website is a reliable source ,i searched in election in 2008 but the logo of this Ecological Movement of Venezuela is a copyrighted (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to make any points about keeping this logo, you need to post it at File talk:Old logo Ecological Movement of Venezuela (2008).png, and not here. This noticeboard is for administrative actions. You have requested that the user be warned and blocked for restoring the deletion tag that you removed. The action of restoring the deletion tag is valid as you are not allowed to remove it. It is actually your removal of the tag that was improper. There is no admin action to be taken against Iruka13 as all of their actions are within policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

User:R3YBOl

• R3YBOl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please block this user and delete their creations as they are confirmed sockpuppet of ابا خشم السندوس (sockmaster). See ar:ويكيبيديا:طلبات تدقيق المستخدمين#ابا خشم السندوس. --Karim talk to me :)..! 20:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Has there been anything on en:? Secretlondon (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It's kind of hard for R3YBOl to be a sock of ابا خشم السندوس since R3YBOl is the older account by over a year. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Rapidly changing IP doing mass PROD of software stubs; no way to communicate

Copied from help desk. I don't like posting here but I don't know where else this should go.

As can be seen in User:SDZeroBot/PROD sorting, a good-faith IP user is PRODing dozens of poorly sourced software stubs with the rationale "Fails WP:NSOFT" without appearing to search for sources or look for any WP:ATDs. The problem is, I am unable to leave a talk page message because their IP address is different every time they do a PROD (I think this is due to their ISP). Although some of their PRODs are correct, I have dePRODed many of these articles while adding sources to demonstrate notability. Is there any way to communicate with them? Should the user be allowed to keep PRODing and have each PROD be individually reviewed? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Helpful Raccoon,

Could you provide one or two IP addresses here? We use to have an active account that did this a year or two ago and I'm just curious about their geolocation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

User:90.167.218.174, User:90.167.203.192. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

There are also IPs with a different prefix like User:85.48.187.51. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, here's why I asked. I've been deleting PROD'd articles and files for years now. And for a few years (I'd guess 2021-2023) we had IPs from Madrid, Spain whose only activity on this entire project was PRODding articles on old software. After seeing this for months, I know I brought it up somewhere, either on a noticeboard or to an admin, but there were never any editors who objected to these articles being PROD'd. It was a peculiar focus for any editor to have but no one seemed to take issue with it. But this is partially because, unlike articles sent to AFD, there are few editors keeping track of PRODs.

So, when I looked at the first two IPs you listed, surprise, suprise, they geo-locate to Madrid, Spain. I'm assuming it's the same editor who seems to have a very deep knowledge of Wikipedia's articles on defunct, older or extinct software. If you believe the articles are incorrectly PROD'd, then remove the tag. Otherwise, at least in my experience, I don't see much action being taken. Since they are helping clean up unwanted articles, I don't think blocking their accounts serve a productive purpose for the project. Of course, if objections are raised here, that opinion can change. I'm not optimistic about communication but I wanted to let you know that I believe this editor has an editing history on the project doing exactly this sort of thing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The lack of edit summaries, at the least, is a serious problem. Editors who watchlist articles should be informed by the edit summary that a deletion has been proposed, as should (if the article survives) later editors who might want to look through the edit history to find a past prod. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

This would seem like a job for tags – (Tag: PROD added) and (Tag: PROD removed) would both seem to have use cases – the IP editor mentioned in the original report and Liz's point about nobody really keeping track of PRODs. I have no idea how to go about proposing new tags, though. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRODSUM is how I keep track of prods, but that only works for finding current ones, not for finding them in article edit histories. The rate of NSOFT prods is high, but not out of line with the rate of prods sometimes reached in the ongoing purge of non-medal Olympians and other sportspeople, or Iranian villages, or whatever it is we're purging this week. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, aside from SDZeroBot's sorted pages, the page that admin PROD reviewers consult is User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. This page orders PROD'd articles by "expiration time". I agree that PROD'd pages should have edit summaries. But we have several longtime editors who refuse to include edit summaries for articles they PROD despite repeated requests and despite the fact that they PROD many, many articles. I even tried pleading with two of them to use Twinkle to tag articles for deletion but no success. If we can't get our regular editors to use edit summaries, I don't have much confidence in a IP-hopping account to use the correct protocol. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems like we have an agreement that a tag on PROD-adding (but not per se PROD-removing) edits would be generally useful (I could be reading this wrong, I've been out celebrating a book launch and wine may have flowed a bit freely) so I'm very much prepared to politely argue for it tomorrow when I'm sober, if someone can point me at where we go to propose such things. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it'd be either WP:VPT or phab:tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

My issue is there is a concerning lack of effort on the IP's part to search for sources, combined with a concerningly low number of PROD reviewers. I have dePRODed around 20 articles so far, in most cases because there are sources to argue for notability, and I'm not even done reviewing everything. If nobody happens to review several clearly notable articles that are just undersourced, this could cause a lot of damage (although the articles can be undeleted if necessary). Then again, the fact that I'm reviewing these articles arguably means the PROD process is working as intended... Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Helpful Raccoon, I'm not sure how to say this gently, but BEFORE does not exist for PRODs. And admins reviewing PRODs just check to make sure the article or file hasn't been PROD'd or to AFD/FFD before. We are not suppose to decline deleting PROD'd pages if a legitimate reason is included but, to be honest, editors who tag articles for PROD generally offer extremely brief and weak reasons for deleting an article or file. They might just add "Not notable" or "Fails WP:GNG" and that's it. On the other hand, there are some editors who go to lengths to indicate that they have searched for sources but they are the exception, not the rule. Just scan down the list User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary and I predict that you will be very unimpressed with the deletion rationales provided for most tagged articles. So, I think this is a problem with PRODs, in general, not just this wandering IP account. And, if I'll be fair, I see some equally weak deletion rationales at WP:AFD some days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Inane badgering at AfD and miscellaneous hostility by User:Coresly

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Coresly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just one look at an older revision of their userpage is a very strong indication that they are WP:NOTHERE. Also see deliberately provocative diffs like here, here, and here. Their most recent hobby is asking absurd questions like "What sources did you identify and how do they establish notability?" or "Did you look for sourcing?" at various AfDs (for an instance where sources had already been provided and an instance where a user had already said they were unable to find sources, respectively). Here's another diff where they seem to suggest that a user lied about being unable to find sources for an article and asked them exactly what they did find. It doesn't appear that the user has any particular interest in the outcome of any of these AfDs, and it seems more likely they're just trying to stir the pot. A few genuine contributions are sprinkled in there, so they aren't technically vandalism-only, but the amount of non-constructive, provocative editing from this account is unacceptable. — Anonymous 01:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous has been following me around the project for the past few days. Just yesterday he tried to get me blocked but wasn’t successful, so I suppose he’s still trying to get his way. My comments at deletion discussions are legitimate and good faith requests for people to expound upon and back up their statements. I think that increases the quality of the discussions. Finally, I am very interested - as are the vast majority of us - in resisting the creep of nationalism, racism, fascism, and whiteness into the number 1 place where people go to look up information. We have a responsibility to see to it that articles on certain topics are progressive and promote progressive values. Respectfully, Coresly (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

We have a responsibility for neutrality Coresly, and if you're here to war with others over political values, please find somewhere else to go, rather than needling nominators for minor or non-existent issues with their nominations. I've also removed your contributions regarding the names of mountains being 'federally designated' that aren't in question, which feel WP:POINTy regarding a recent issue about other names rather than informative. Finally, whatever this was on your userpage (along with posting inappropriate content removed earlier, including an image you uploaded to Commons called 'Lovingbbc.jpg'), don't ever do it again. Nathannah • 📮 01:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

We have a responsibility to see to it that articles on certain topics are progressive and promote progressive values. No, we certainly do not. I would also call myself progressive, but, when writing articles, we have a responsibility to put our personal opinions aside and follow what the sources say. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby their "progressivism" is clearly poor satire. See the links I've provided. — Anonymous 01:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It does look like it, indeed. I was suspicious but preferred to WP:AGF in my first reply, but looking more at it, the WP:NOTHERE behavior is pretty obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, they've now committed more blatant (apparently racist) vandalism here. — Anonymous 01:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The more I dig into this user, the more it seems they're definitely NOTHERE; they apparently tried this edit with the image I mentioned above, and User:RaNDomDude050 (talk · contribs) commenting on their page seems like an 'obvious sock is obvious' situation. They also did some POINTy editing to start with regarding the Gulf situation. Nathannah • 📮 01:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. No thanks. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Daniel beat me to it, so obviously I endorse the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Gulf of America" IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2600:1012:A123:5B9C:B8B5:D7DC:D158:A8D5 has been repeatedly changing mentions of Gulf of Mexico to "Gulf of America" (against consensus) and with inflammatory pro-Trump edit summaries. See diffs: 1, 2, 3. They have not responded to messages about this on their talk page. Apologies if this is too hasty or otherwise improper - would've posted at AIV but felt that this wasn't textbook vandalism. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 01:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

And nevermind. Already blocked by ToBeFree before I supplied notice. May be closed. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 01:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP removing sourced negative content on a person

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

206.198.189.134 is repeatedly removing sourced content on article Alexander Kozhevnikov (ice hockey), citing "Russian propaganda" which is obviously untrue. He also made a personal attack on his talk page. 192.184.150.127 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

my gawd, did you read it, it is homophobic, prejudiced against several nationalities, refers to russians as real men 3 times, and is in direct response to russian being banned from international hockey because their nation illegally and horribly invaded another innocent country ... it is so obviously propaganda 206.198.189.134 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

206* has been blocked for hitting 7RR on Alexander Kozhevnikov. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

And to be entirely fair, the section 206* was attempting to remove may be WP:UNDUE, or at least have too long a quote. But edit-warring like this to remove it is not the way to do it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

And the OP has been blocked by Zzuuzz. I have removed the content again as undue and opened a discussion on the talk-page in case any non-blocked editors wanted to talk about it. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple accounts rapidly reverting edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the past week or so I've noticed several IPs and new accounts rapidly reverting edits, including a few of my own. Examples of this are on Bug (1975 film), Hector's Dolphin, Maine River (Maine) and KKFR. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Which IPs/accounts, what edits (i.e. diffs)? Linking to individual apices is not helpful. GiantSnowman 09:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The few examples that I looked at have all been indeffed. Their reverts had a rapidly reverting tag and that link shows a lot block-worthy IPs/accounts. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

see User:Dxst14 or User:Jblithe1380. They consistently hit "Filter description: AV 7s" and "Filter description: LTA 1345" and sometimes randomly undo edits and other times add random letters or remove lines. I count 20 accounts just today. AssumeGoodWraith (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we are aware of this spate of vandalism. It was reported five days ago at WP:ANI#IP hopper making tons of useless edits and mentioned at WP:ANI#Vandalbot help. Admins and others are working to contain this. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: 136.49.103.19

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 136.49.103.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user vandalized in the article Star Alliance in this and this ,please warned this user (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

These edits are 18 days old. There is nothing to be done here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unexplained removal of tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rapta999 (talk · contribs) keeps on removing the maintainance tags on Attacks of Dağlıca and Iğdır. I'm currently copyediting this page and just tagging {{pov}} and {{copyedit}} (though I remove it as I think I done enough to article). I tag the article for pov as the "reaction" section seems to only focus on the Turkish side of the aftermath (but currently trying to fix it and even notified the page creator Canoooo.4 (talk · contribs) and by leaving invisible comments on the page.

Rapta999 just showed up to the page and just remove the tags without explaination (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) or even try to fix the problems. I've warn him 2 times and ping him/her to the article's talkpage 2 times. But, he/she still continue removing it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rapta999: Please stop removing the maintainace tag until the discussion here is over. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rapta999: Explain your actions here and stop removing the mt tags until the discussion is over. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I will talk about Canoooo.4 (talk · contribs). I came across completely unrealistic events in an article he/she created [Operation Broom]. The article says that Hakurk camp was captured and PKK militants fled to Iran, but for some reason it was written as a PKK victory and in the casualties section it was written that 100 Turkish soldiers were killed. I reviewed the sources but I could not find anything like that. I also sense WP:MEAT in the article Minimity mentioned. Kajmer05 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I look over some of the Canoooo.4 (talk · contribs) created pages, I notice that he/she uses turkish sources on this type of pages. Which can be unreliable when talking about the Kurds. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Rapta999 (talk · contribs) continues to remove and also removed the tag from Operation Broom and Çetinkaya Store Massacre [100][101] (these articles were created by Canoooo.4). This should definitely be WP:MEAT. Kajmer05 (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh Golly, someone just quack at the world's largest megaphone Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Given how atrocious Operation Broom was written, I am beginning to suspect that it is either a hoax or should be rewritten by someone who is does not have serious WP:CIR issues. Borgenland (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Borgenland In that article, it is mentioned that the Hakurk camp was captured and PKK militants fled to Iran, but the result was "PKK victory" and it also says that 100 Turkish soldiers were killed in the casualties section. I looked at the sources and I never really saw anything like this, and it didn't even mention that incident. Then Rapta999 comes and removes all the tags, this is a very suspicious situation. Kajmer05 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It also appears they don't know what they really want to talk about, the operation or the attack on the jandarma? Borgenland (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I found it, they translated the page from here. [102] PKK militants first attack the gendarmes, then the Turkish government launches an operation against PKK militants. In Turkish Wikipedia does not mention the PKK victory, on ​​the contrary, it is mentioned that the PKK militants suffered very heavy casualties and the militants fled to Iran. I think this user creates the articles to mislead. Kajmer05 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Attacks of Dağlıca and Iğdır has been PP-ed for two days. However, the offending editor is somehow able to edit with impunity [103]. Borgenland (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

And now blatant WP:OWN at [104]. Borgenland (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Another WP:OWN at [105]. Borgenland (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Offending user blocked per [106]. Borgenland (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

83.142.111.65 repeatedly removing content without a proper reason as to why

On the article Ligier European Series, this user has edit warred and repeatedly section blanked parts of the article with no proper explanation. He tries to cite Verfiability and that the specs of the car are not "verifable" so it should be removed. Even though (and this has been discussed multiple times in the past), things that are facts and uncontroversial do not need a citation. 135.180.130.195 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• No, that's not how it works. Things that don't need a citation are stuff like "The moon is the only satellite of the Earth" or "Dogs have four legs". The material that the IP is removing is completely uncited and therefore they are not doing anything specifically wrong by doing so. I would suggest simply sourcing the facts, I can't see that would be difficult. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment – 83.142.111.65 has gone beyond just asking to enforce WP:V. He has edit warred (while constantly citing WP:WAR himself), broken WP:3RR multiple times, he has accused other editors of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and has persistently dismissed secondary sources as WP:PRSOURCE without evidence. The matter moved to a full-on discussion that reached no consensus but, regardless, he's now set about page blanking and edit warring again. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR + unreasonable accusation bombardment + ignoring policies + avoiding achieving a consensus.

User talk:135.180.130.195 repeatedly return WP:OR to the Ligier European Series I deleted according to WP:V and because of fact noone is adding the sources covering it despite appropriate imrpovement tag was set.

Right after it he start to unreasonably accuse me in disruptive editing and frighten me with blocking. He didn't answer to my questions what exactly he meant under what he accuse me in as one as didn't approve it any way @ User talk:83.142.111.65#March 2025

Can you please somehow influence to that editor for him to follow wikipedia policies instead of violating it as one as unreasonably accuse me repeatedly?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC) 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I have merged this thread with the previous one. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 19:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Can please someone influence on user:Road Atlanta Turn 5 who nor source the WP:OR nor accepting it's deletion by repeatedly reverting my such contribution @2024 Ligier European Series (and breaking the WP:3RR with no doubt despite being warned he's close to it) despite WP:V clearly said: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable."

I see his behaviour as some nonsense. Please evaluate it by yourself. Thank you 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I have done three reverts so I haven't breached the rule, meanwhile you have reverted my (and other's) changes on the same page and breached the 3RR rule more than once. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment (non administrator, involved in the ongoing edit war) Have you even read 3RR..? You keep citing it but the people you are accusing it of (Road Atlanta Turn 5 and the 130 IP) have not reverted more than 3 times on a page in 24 hours. This is starting to seem like a witch hunt. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, maybe I'm wrong about WP:3RR, however I still insist returning WP:OR to the article is unacceptable according to WP:V.

  And you, as involved person, could see on your own they unreasonably reverting any of my contribution for days whatever it is. So who's a whitchunter here? Please stay on topic. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Please stop WP:GAMING. There's also said: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring" 83.142.111.65 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has violated WP:3RR, but can see that you're both edit-warring. Just cut it out. Road Atlanta Turn 5, reply on the talk page rather than edit the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like the contested content has now been sourced (thank you, GalacticVelocity08) so I believe this can be closed with a round of {{trout}}s all around and an admonition to everyone involved above that edit-warring is bad no matter how many reverts you've done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Although, this wasn't the only thing contested and the edit-warring seems to not have stopped.... Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. The 83 IP has since made this edit, which I found noteworthy. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 22:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hopeful. Blocked 83* for EWing for 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

User:8diq continuous copyvio (2nd report)

8diq (talk · contribs · count) has

• repeatedly inserted a large amount of copyrighted inline images despite being warned about copyright twice and about MOS:IRELEV by three separate editors. First warned on December 2023, around ~35 edits afterwards.
• posted copyrighted materials on articles and cross-wiki-uploaded copyrighted images to Commons tagged as "own work". Already blocked twice for copyvio on commons.

Northern Moonlight 22:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Major COI editing on Claudia Brind-Woody

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the article Claudia Brind-Woody, an IP address (User:2a00:23c6:9c19:2a01:fd42:ed9d:d09c:a6b1) and a registered account (User:Cbrindwoody), both of which were allegedly used by Claudia herself, added a substantial amount of promotional language, puffery, and unsourced statements to the article a few weeks ago. The IP account even said in an edit summary "This is a clean up and update of my personal bio".

The account also completely ruined the formatting and citations on the page, which was how I noticed this in the first place (the page was listed on Special:Deadendpages when that special page was last updated). It leads me to speculate these accounts may have used AI-generated content in order to "enhance" the article, especially given the repetitive nature of the writing, the strange section titles that were bolded instead of being properly formatted as headings, and citations having "[URL not found]" in them (lol).

I'm not sure if these accounts were really used by Claudia or if they were just trolls/people pretending to be her, but regardless, action needs to be taken. ApexParagon (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I left Cbrindwoody a COI notice on their talk page since they may not even be aware of our COI guidelines. Maybe this report should be at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard instead. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia noticeboards; did not realize there was a dedicated noticeboard for conflict-of-interest. I will also post this there. ApexParagon (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: Here is my post on the COI board. ApexParagon (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2804:1B3:A8C2:506B:EDB1:2641:13BC:1CA6 and 179.110.84.165 disruptive edits

The IP addresses 2804:1B3:A8C2:506B:EDB1:2641:13BC:1CA6 and 179.110.84.165 have made hundreds of edits that solely consist of adding one space randomly somewhere in a page. Jon698 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

2804:1B3:A8C1:D7DA:18A8:16F4:A2A2:86BF is another IP address that does this, but only has a few edits. Jon698 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

1. 2804:1B3:A8C2:506B:EDB1:2641:13BC:1CA6 last edited the 23th of February
2. 179.110.84.165 was blocked by Ingenuity for 31 hours. This may need to be increased if they continue.
3. 2804:1B3:A8C1:D7DA:18A8:16F4:A2A2:86BF has made 4 edits so far.

Polygnotus (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Looked like 2804:1b3:a8c0::/46 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been making the same kind of edits since January 2023. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, I've blocked that range for three months. We'll see if that discourages them. They (or someone in that range) seems to be fooling around with the Paulo Gustavo article too. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Big Thumpus is limited to article space

As a result of an ANI thread, Big_Thumpus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic banned from AP2. BT has continued to skirt that ban (User_talk:Big_Thumpus#Topic_banned_from_Post-1992_American_politics_(AP2)_and_current_events) despite warnings from @Rosguill: User_talk:Big_Thumpus#Topic_ban_violation. They claim they want to be no part of the community, which is their right, but their subsequent conduct is unproductive and blockable per their T-Ban. Therefore, I propose that BT is limited to editing articles and article talks outside of their topic ban and nowhere else on the project. I propose that in lieu of a project space block since I'm not positive the disruption won't move to user talks, which it did this weekend. This way BT can show they're able to edit productively and eventually have their restrictions limited while limiting further disruption. If they don't wish to edit article space, that's also fine. Courtesy ping Femke as closer of prior thread. Star Mississippi 02:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This is plainly retaliatory and poor behavior for an administrator. I expect absolutely zero fairness from The Community at this point. I have not received the assumption of good faith required by policy from the moment I began editing.

Discussing how another editor was being treated, on their own talk page, has absolutely nothing to do with American politics. Pointing that out feels absurd. Just as absurd as editors who spend a great deal of time at ANI trying to get me banned from it.

I fully expect that same group of editors to pile into this thread. Congratulations - you all get your way, every time. This is a dirty way to run an encyclopedia and I think many of you actually know that, deep in your hearts. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think what is being said..... is are you here to help facilitate knowledge for our readers or just chat? Moxy🍁 02:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I've already stated publicly that I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia because of the treatment I have received here. This retaliatory ANI thread is just another example of why I have zero confidence in the administrative system. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not retaliatory. You said you were no longer interested, yet have continued to use User Talk spaces and not in a productive manner. Wikipedia is for improving content, it is not a place to chat if you have no interest in communicatingcontributing. Star Mississippi 03:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes I have edited a grand total of 2 talk pages - my own and Lincoln's. I'm free to briefly pause my self imposed break from editing to reach out to someone who I feel is being treated unfairly by the community, am I not? Talk pages all over Wikipedia, indeed probably even your own, contain a broad range of casual conversation. I don't believe what you're referencing should be held to a different standard. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia So what I am hearing is that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Editors with a topic ban will naturally be treated to a different standard than editors without one since editors with a topic ban need to abide by their topic ban. If I had an AP topic ban there's maybe 5-10 edits of my last 100 that would be okay. I would not be posting in this thread, I would not have posted on your talk page. I wouldn't even have give the two CTOP alerts I gave for the Arab-Israel conflict since while this is a different CTOP area the article editing that gave rise to my CTOP alerts were definitely American politics related. Heck I would not even have commented in the ANI thread to give a simple reminder that ARBECR applied due to the A-I focus so maybe someone might want to deal with that. If it had been a few days and no one had said anything about ARBECR I might have approached some administrator involved explaining my concern and why I didn't say anything but that would be my one post. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

All I see from this user is constant aspersions and bad advice to a new user before and after that user was site banned. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just indef Big Thumpus already. We don't need any more half measures. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, after a very, very long discussion closed with the outcome of a topic ban, I think the discussion participants wanted to see if these sanctions would be sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I suggested a temporary block for Lincoln2020 instead of a siteban was because of Big Thumpus's comments on their page. BT was clearly goading Lincoln2020 on, perhaps beyond where they would have gone on their own. If anything, instead of a TBan, BT ought to be sitebanned, with consideration to downgrading Lincoln2020 to a temporary, 2-week block. BT was clearly either trolling maliciously or meatpuppeting Lincoln2020. King Lobclaw (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes BT was goading Lincoln2020. But Lincoln2020 was community sanctioned. I would not reduce this without realization of the problem, indication it will end, and acceptance by the community. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Given the unblock requests Lincoln2020 has made, reducing the block to 2 weeks would not solve the problem. Lincoln2020 is still claiming his block is a conspiracy to shut him up. He has gone so far as to request that arbcom get involved in the second request. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support site-ban BT openly admits to being not here to build an encyclopedia. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, another participant from the other ban thread - right on time, welcome back. Calling for the indefinite site banning of someone who has only edited their own talk page and the talk page of one other user since being topic banned is ridiculous. The encyclopedia is not suffering some great agony because of my existence, and if my discussion with an editor on their talk page bothers you I recommend closing the tab.

The Community [of editors who spend an incredible amount of time pushing for bans at ANI against editors they perceive as politically disagreeable] just doesn't like me, I get it. You all probably think I'm some MAGA asshole because I dared to remove content that maligned Elon Musk, but you couldn't be more wrong. You have no idea who I am, but judging by the way I've been treated since day 1, you never cared to find out. Most, if not all, of you are guilty of WP:BITE, at the very least, but I fully expect my feelings about that to be immediately invalidated.

And like I've already said - I expect absolutely zero actual consideration from The Community here. Liz is on Arb Com and clearly has taken a side (which is, of course, inappropriate for someone with those privileges and responsibilities - but hey, who cares!). Big Thumpus (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban BT is either using Lincoln2020 as a meat puppet or winding them up as some sort of troll. Either way, they're in the wrong. The hair-shirt victimization act isn't working. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I won't try to contend that my comportment on the Gulf of Mexico discussion was above reproach. I didn't live up to my own standards and have said as much to a few other people. I was upset about American politics, largely over expansionist threats made towards Canada, where I live, and was thus more emotionally involved in the material than is best. I try to do better most of the time and fully intend to redouble my efforts to keep my cool, avoid political spice and to continue to be guided by Wikipedia policy in my decision making. However, at this point, I have been made something of a spectacle first at WP:AN then at WP:ANI. All I want, at this point is for these two editors to leave me alone. I would have been content to say nothing at all if I had much faith that they would agree to leave this in the past and move on productively. However, based on some of their commentary, I am afraid they will continue pursuing this dispute. I am not asking for any specific sanction and, if they can agree to leave this dispute in the past I hope additional sanctions, beyond those the community has already placed, will be unnecessary.

I do want to make it very clear that I canvassed nobody. I said my piece, said I would answer questions if needed and then went back to productive editing. I didn't enjoy seeing my own name pop up on my watchlist repeatedly over the last ten days and certainly did not want to inflame or extend this dispute that I sincerely want to leave behind. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Raoul mishima and Kelvintjy - slow edit warring and non-communicativeness

This is an update on the issue raised [107] here previously. I tried to intervene at that time because Buddhism is something I have a lot of knowledge about. However things have not been going well. After the archiving of this thread the two editors continued their slow edit war at Soka School System [108][109][110] I then restored the article to its pre-edit war condition [111] and asked both of them to stop edit warring and come to article talk [112] [113]. I also created an article talk section [114]. However instead of talking to each other, each of these editors turned to argue to me about how the other one is the disruptive editor. They also continued editing without any prior discussion [115] - appears a reasonable inclusion but still no communication on it [116] - is a clear resumption of the edit war. I don't know how to get through to these two that they are both being highly disruptive by engaging in this slow-edit war, by engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality toward each other and by refusing to actually talk directly to each other about even basic edits. Honestly, at this point, I'd suggest that both should be topic banned from Japanese New Religious Movements. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the Talk Page of Soka School System, you will notice I tried to talk with @Kelvintjy many times, but he never answered. I'm not into edit warring, just trying to make this page more informative and less prommotionnal, and I'd like to do it with this user if he's ready for collaborating. I noticed this user has already been banned from at least one page last summer because of the same thing, reverting edits without using the talk page. Raoul mishima (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I asked you to stop the mass reversions and discuss at article talk and you just reverted to your preferred version anyway. Also you have made statements previously that indicate you may have multiple accounts. Could you please confirm whether this is your only Wikipedia account? Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Raoul meant Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, whose shortcut is "WP:SPA" (while socks are socks). Aaron Liu (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It was that the way they put it seemed to intimate they were maintaining this account for a specific purpose which necessarily raises the question: do they maintain other accounts for similar purposes? I'm not the only one who has asked this question of Raoul mishima but they have never provided an answer when asked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That's usually not what SPA implies, but I would also appreciate an answer. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

This is my only account today. And once again : I'm willing to collaborate with @Kelvintjy and any user. I reverted the Soka School System once again because the last revert by the other user was made without any discussion. @Aaron Liu do you know Kelvintjy or have you collaborated with him on WP pages ? Raoul mishima (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, just asking because on the Soka School System talk page today, he tagged you and other users "Daveler166, Daveler16,Augmented Seventh, Tacktician, Aaron Liu, QuotidianAl Kelvintjy (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)". Raoul mishima (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be a list of people who have opposed your edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It also seems they all belong to the Soka Gakkai... Btw is it your case ? Raoul mishima (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That's another aspersion casted baselessly. Please stop assuming that all those who agree with you have a COI. And I've already answered long ago that I'm not. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Raoul mishima, it is inappropriate to ask editors about their religious affiliations so please do not make assumptions or do that again. And This is my only account today is ambiguous (what about accounts yesterday?), please list your previous accounts on your User page. Also, edit-warring is edit-warring, it doesn't matter what your reasons for doing it are unless you are removing vandalism or BLP violations which is not the case here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Liz, Soka Gakkai is not a religion. It is an worldwide, powerful and wealthy organization, that created Japan's third political party. Being a member of this organization and editing pages related to it seems like a COI to me. Raoul mishima (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if your description is accurate that is out of keeping with Wikipedia policy. We allow members of the Republican party to edit about Donald Trump. We allow members of the LPC edit about Justin Trudeau. We allow scientologists to edit about scientology. You wanting to ban members of Soka Gakkai from editing about Soka Gakkai is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy and is, frankly, highly inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Raoul mishima, it's also inappropriate to ask an editor what political party they are affiliated with or where they work or any personal information that has not been self-disclosed. Editors are anonymous on Wikipedia and outing has gotten editors who have made many, many more contributions than you have made indefinitely blocked. It's a bright-line rule. Don't ask again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Support: I found this whole fiasco after the recent deaths nomination of Daisaku Ikeda (and thus the splitting of the badly-sourced Honors section into List of awards and honours received by Daisaku Ikeda), and part of me wishes I didn't. Now, I take a look at that article, and it's now a great mess: among other frivolous changes such as removed the "International Honors" paragraph since there is an entire page dedicated to it., we have but has also been described as a cult by medias ("Soka Gakkai has many of the markings of a cult"[3]) and politicians (the French parliamentary commission in 1995) put at the end of the first lede paragraph. A few editors also objected to such language on the talk page when they were added in late November. Despite that, Raoul continued to revert to their preferred version multiple times, even ironically mentioning talk section tx once. And when Raoul finally responded, it was January 7, and Raoul had effectively waited out the other editors' interest in editing. Trying to find consensus with Raoul means dealing with their constant deflections, as you can see in the discussion Talk:Daisaku Ikeda#Philosopher ?. Raoul clearly has an axe to grind, and their contributions would take a considerable time to comb through. But what we can do is stop them from any more edits in their area of disruption.

I also support a topic ban on Kelvin since it's clear he also has issues—both from the non-responses and interactions reported here and from the ANI thread in which he was partially blocked, including the COI concerns. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I also support a ban on Raoul mishima from pages related to Japanese new religious movements, because they appear to be a biased Wikipedia editor with an axe to grind against Daisaku Ikeda, Soka Gakkai, and anything related to them. It is important and necessary to provide an objective account of an influential historical figure like Daisaku Ikeda, but this is impossible if an editor is so biased against them. Nuanced and balanced Wikipedia pages are the need of the hour (something I have pointed to in the talk pages too), and I support anything that helps bring that about. QuotidianAl (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Well @QuotidianAl I totally agree, but before my edits on the pages you mention, do you really think the content provided an objective account ? This is the Daisaku Ikeda page a year ago, do you really find it objective ? Same with the Soka Gakkai page a year ago, it just looks like an advertisment. Another question : do you think people belonging to the Soka Gakkai have no biased view and can provide a 100% objective content about it on WP ? Raoul mishima (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

In fact, days before you made any edits to this article, the article passed quality standards to be featured on the main page under the Recent deaths row, whose only substantial criteria is quality. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I find more complaints in the talk page archives; see e.g. Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive 4#Irresponsible Editing Without Prior Discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Does this means that you want me to be banned in more than 30 related articles that are related to Soka Gakkai or Daisaku Ikeda? Kelvintjy (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This will be my last answer @Kelvintjy : I want to collaborate,. If you don't, gfy. Raoul mishima (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who asked you? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As I've explained to you here, in reply to your comment on an unrelated thread, pretty much yes, though that ban will be enforced by humans and not software. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Please look at Soka Gakkai International where Raoul mishima had removed a big chuck on information. He is trying bait me to go to edit war. If he is not stop, all article related to Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda will be edited purely by him and those who don't agree with him and are weak in providing a proper reasoning with him will get banned by Wikipedia moderator who will agree with him. This is what happened to me when I get topic banned in Soka Gakkai while the other editor is left the hook after he made the appeal as he know how to argue. Below are some the article he had made recent to mass edit according to his version

• Humanistic Buddhism
• Lèse-majesté in Japan
• Min-On Concert Association
• Taiseki-ji
• Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan
• Mass media in Japan
• Soka School System
• Soka Gakkai International
• Religion in Singapore
• Jimon Ogasawara (Updated)
• Gohonzon (Updated)
• Omamori (Updated) Kelvintjy (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Kelvintjy (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Kelvintjy, what do you mean by those who don't agree with him and are weak in providing a proper reasoning with him will get banned by Wikipedia moderator who will agree with him. Do you have so little faith in our administrators (that's admins, not mods) that you think they will just side with an editor and impose bans on innocent editors for no good reason at all? That's a bad faith sentiment in our admin corps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  What I meant is that editors like us who are not very good in giving a good reason in the talk page.

  I was banned by Bbb23 from Soka Gakkai as I cannot explain properly. When I appeal against the ban, it was rejected by 331dot.

  Below are some of the past incidents involved me.

  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]

  Kelvintjy (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  I can explain if you wish, or you can just have a look at the talk page of your own account.

  You were banned from that page because you were engaged in an edit war, against my edits and then again another users'. You kept reverting without any discussion. And the administrator noticed that you had been adding to many pages to the Soka Gakkai, primary sources, and irrelevant links. He concluded : "Kelvintjy does not generally discuss content but prefers to simply revert edits or manually roll things back without explanation. It should be noted that Kelvintjy is an SGI member." Raoul mishima (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Can you named the administrator whom you quote said about me? Kelvintjy (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I have not removed information but promotional content, it's way different. You have been using your WP account to add promotional/propaganda content to a lot of pages related or not to Soka Gakkai.

The Soka Gakkai page itself, which you have heavily modified last summer. It was built by multiple editors which you rolled back on the 13th of August.

"He is trying bait me to go to edit war" : not at all, and it looks like you need me to go on edit war : last August you were banned from a page for that reason, remember ?

According to your list,

Humanistic buddhism -> -539

Lèse-majesté : -133

Min-On : -958

It's not "mass edit" or you have a problem with proportions. Raoul mishima (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You were partially blocked from Soka Gakkai (not WP:topic banned) because you kept rapidly reverting nearly all edits to that article. (Also, note that Raoul has never been blocked; Kelvintjy has confused Raoul for User:wound theology, who replaced their own block with the exact same voluntary WP:Restriction so that they could access the Wikipedia Library.) Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there are slightly different problems here. In the case of Kelvintjy I think we have a WP:CIR issue caused by weak English skills. Kelvin regularly complains they feel out of their depth at article talk pages - that their words are twisted or they are unable to effectively counter statements made by interlocutors. This may be compounded by a WP:COI.

Raoul mishima, meanwhile, seems motivated by some sort of WP:RGW desire to make articles more "neutral." However because they seem to have a personal animosity toward this specific new religious movement they don't exercise good discretion in their edits, frequently removing academic sources such as text book chapters because they feel these sources are overly promotional of the subject religion. They seem not to be aware that this is making the articles less neutral rather than more.

This would be problem enough on its own to suggest neither of these editors should be working in this topic space. However this is made worse by the fact that both are committed to continuing this slow edit war. When they come to article talk, or this noticeboard, all they do is point fingers at each other. Neither editor shows any willingness to truly collaborate with the other. Rm calls Kelvin various aspersions regularly. Kelvin goes to article talk and all they say is that they intend to revert Rm's edits without any discussion of what should be kept or why. I think these two tangling is likely driving off other editors and is highly disruptive to the topic space. They have continued apace at Talk:Soka School System even after I filed this report. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Kelvin reverted your edit on the School System page, I didn't. I stopped reverting and proposed to discuss on the talk page, as I've been doing for months, and I'm willing to make better pages that way, but it depends on Kelvin. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes you did. In chronological order (earlier to latest): Simonm223 +1069 to the version after Folly Mox's edit on 16 June 2024, Kelvintjy +172 to add back a previous edit correcting a Singapore school's name, Raoul mishima -7944 back to their preferred version. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually asked you at article talk to discuss Kelvin's +172 edit and whether you felt it was appropriate. This, I thought, would be an easy way to get the two of you talking as the edit was a very basic factual correction. Instead you reverted the whole article to your preferred form and did not address the edit in question at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Concerning that same School System page @Simonm223, how objective do you think it is now ? That version is the one Kelvin fought for, and I think it's highly problematic because it just looks like an advertising. Some paragraphs are laudatory, facts are unsourced, it's disappointing. It's not objective at all, and that is the issue. @Kelvintjy has constantly been manipulating / censoring the pages related to the organization he belongs to. @Wound theology noticed at least a dozen of incidents (see Aug. 16th 2024) before Kelvin was banned. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I already said what I think - your cuts were indiscriminate and included the removal of reliable academic sources that you thought treated the new religious movement too favorably. Neither your nor Kelvin's preferred page is particularly neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Since the last comment here Kelvintjy has not edited but Raoul mishima has made another major edit to a Soka Gakkai related page, deleting reliable sources on the grounds that he doesn’t have access to the books to personally verify thwir contents. A book being offline is not grounds to treat it as unreliable. This is an ongoing problem that still needs resolving. [117] Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Not just that, when he cannot argue his case, he will just keep quiet for a few day to a few weeks before making the edits quietly. Kelvintjy (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying to talk and argue with your on Talk pages for month @Kelvintjy... I just hope you're now ready to collaborate towards better, reliable and objective pages ! Raoul mishima (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that you are not willing to listen when all other editors tried to talk to you and you just went MIA for days. After that, you made your edit and disregard other people opinion. Kelvintjy (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Just look at the talk pages @Kelvintjy, it's amazing how you keep repeating I "disregard other people opinion" but never try to talk or collaborate. Raoul mishima (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) I think that some attention should be drawn to this comment that Raoul mishima most recently made. Telling another editor to go fuck themselves hardly seems indicative of an actual willingness to collaborate or contribute constructively. Taffer😊 💬_(she/they) 20:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, and as for me gfy stands for "good for you". Raoul mishima (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisting; this still needs admin assessment. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Please block 155.98.132.2 asap

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am unable to keep up with the speed and changing IP of their PAs at Liz's Talk page. C.Fred has already blocked one of them. (155.98.132.2 (talk · contribs)) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz protected their talkpage and blocked that IP. Polygnotus (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Requesting TPA revocation on that IP. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry that this has ended up on a noticeboard but they were particularly persistent tonight. I think I issued a short block on their IP a few months ago and ever since then, they pop up on my User talk page every few weeks and post that I've gone "rogue" and that I'm "fat". Believe me, after one has been doxxed by Gamergate 10 years ago, these attacks are just a childish waste of time. I am grateful for those who watch my User talk page because it's only minutes before the edits have been reverted. Compared to the trolls that plague a few other editors and admins on this project, this is pretty light-weight stuff. But thanks to my TPS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:City of Silver

City of Silver (talk · contribs) (COS) is currently making questionable commentaries on other people. I received a message for not using edit summaries at the 97th Academy Awards page, an event that concluded 30 minutes ago. My only edits there were simple updates and a revert to an IP user who got caught in multiple edit wars with real edits (the page is PC protected). Generally, the Oscars are semi-protected due to the high visibility, but this year IPs worked nicely (although PC is still discouraged due to the slowness of reviews).

COS never explained which edit he finds problematic that would require me to leave an ES to template me [118], I, an editor that has 10 times more edits and is 8 years older in experience. Generally, I ignore this kind of users as Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars exists (a page COS might not be aware of).

The issue I find is his attitude, but not only with me, his attitude in general with others, using passive-aggressive edit summaries and leaving similar comments. The first one was immediately below "Remove stupid vandalism". As stupid as it is, WP:Do not insult the vandals also exists. I informed him on this, a request he called an attack, and he doubled down telling me to "Revert [him] with another snotty edit summary this instant". This is evidently bad faith, and reviewing his recent edits, this is a constant. Today alone:

• Treating an user with more passive agressiveness.
• Calling an user vandal for basically nothing
• While reverting a civility warning: "removed bizarre, policy-violating attack by User:Stickymatch because they considered my urgent request for clarity on their dishonest message less important than maintaining a blatant, stupid lie at Lauren Handy and whatever they're doing at, for fuck's sake, Donald Duck universe"
• And the most questionable of all: "you've filled this article's history with pointless ticky-tack edits for a while now. please stop. as for the rest of this crap, i might log out and vandalize next year's page so it gets semiprotected because the shitty anonymous editing, all of which has been studiously ignored by veterans who know better like Rafaelmanman and ElijahPepe, has wrecked this page. oh and hey PeteStacman24, your edit summaries fucking suck"

Threatening with sockpuppetry, assuming bad faith, and making everything personal while assuming he is in the right is simply wrong. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tbhotch You are aware that thats not a real threat to vandalize, right? I would interpret it as an expression of exasperation. Polygnotus (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Real or not, WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. He is free to express his exasperations elsewhere, but not here, and certainly not in that tone. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

CoS is clearly in a terrible wikimood, and you keep poking the bear. Whatever happens with CoS aside, you should stop interacting with them. And since you have made over 300.000 edits I am not telling you something you weren't already aware of. Polygnotus (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not poking anyone and I have the right to bring this here, especially when the reported user keeps making personal attacks. If he wants to improve his mood, he can log out and do something else, but right now, this is a current issue. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Poking the bear can be fun, but on ANI its best if your own hands are clean. Polygnotus (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

For the second time, I'm not poking anyone. And this is not the first time this happens. That time he was warned to refrain doing exactly this and for some reason you want to justify it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You are not making sense. I am not justifying their behaviour; I said only one thing about their behaviour which is that their wikimood is "terrible". Looking at their talkpage it has been for a while. I am saying you should stop interacting with CoS. And you already know that. Polygnotus (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You are both experienced editors. I'd advise editors not to fly to ANI right after having an exchange of hostile messages, when they are in the heat of the moment. It doesn't give a reflection of an editor's typical editing to come complaining right after or during a dispute. While some of the behavior here is not ideal, I don't see urgency here, the need for immediate action against either editor. Exhale, move on to work on different articles and see if you still feel as strongly in a few hours or, better yet, tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Regarding your claim that "this year IPs worked nicely", well, I don't know. Please see Talk:97th Academy Awards#Callout and let me know what you think because we're really on different wavelengths with that.

All I can say about the rest of this report is that I don't believe any it fairly characterizes my contributions and, other than an exception I mention at the end of that article talk page's message, I stand by everything I did. I actually like periodically editing here! Really! If I come off as a big crab, I think it's because I always cut through the crap and call things like they are, even if that has me getting very mean. Tbhotch, you correctly noted on my talk page that "Attacking people is not the norm". The thing is, when it comes to vandals and other bad actors, attacking such people is absolutely my norm. That is, the edit was so obviously done in bad faith that calling it anything gentler than stupid would be me being dishonest. I'll accept any consequences for being like this. Here I stand. City of Silver 05:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll accept any consequences for being like this OK. The consequences you'll have to accept is that you have to pretend to be a bit milder, and say the harsher stuff out loud at your screen instead of typing it.

We all do that, being a bit "dishonest" is required in civilized society. Polygnotus (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

As one of the people targeted, I was definitely surprised. It caused me a great deal of anxiety and I stopped editing the page because of it.

When templating me on my talk page (like you said, "for basically nothing", a minor formatting change), CoS never told me what it was that they considered "vandalism" and has now continued to be quite rude (in my opinion) to me and other editors on the talk page for the article as well. CybJubal (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Some of the edits highlighted in this report are nothingburgers. For instance, stupid vandals are stupid, and nobody should care if somebody says this out loud from time to time. On the other hand, this is not appropriate, and neither is the follow-up "callout" message. CoS doesn't seem capable of distinguishing between IP vandals and good-faith editors when venting their rage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Two things. Yes, edit summaries help a lot with high-activity pages. COS never explained which edit he finds problematic that would require me to leave an ES - I mean, it looks like most of your edits to that page don't have an edit summary save a revert, but you're right that none of them are all that major, either. It would help to explain why you're adding/removing songs, I guess, but it doesn't seem that egregious, either.

CoS, if [what I would call] relatively minor things are piling up to the point of exasperation, it may be time to let someone else watch the recent changes on the page. Like this kind of edit or this or this are all pretty standard minor edits to a high-traffic page and really not so outrageous. No, +1/-1 edits can't just be reverted on sight -- some of them look to be an effort to indicate the winners during the live show, no? And this edit you called pointless looks like it just fixed the capitalization of an award category (which you unfixed by reverting). I 100% get the impulse to undo pointless edits to send a message not to make pointless edits, but in doing so, as far as the rest of the users watching the page are concerned, your undo just adds yet another pointless edit. You can definitely ask people to use edit summaries, though. In fact, maybe you want to write an essay specifically about edit summaries in current/ongoing events pages. Then you can leave a friendly message mentioning that instead of templating. You'll never stop trivial edits on a high-traffic page, though, and if you find yourself wanting to, it may be best to take a break. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Phantomsnake pushing conspiracy theories and edit-warring

• Phantomsnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Phantomsnake has been pushing moon landing conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. here they accuse an astronomer along with any "employees of the organisation accused of perpetrating the hoax" of being unreliable; here they do the same and asserts that no article that cites NASA employees can be reliable on the hoax theories; here they again remove the reliable source by claiming against consensus that the author is unreliable. Here they defend their edit-warring and removal by stating: NASA are the ones who perpetrated the hoax in the first place. Of course they will support someone who is prepared to perpetuate it. When confronted for edit-warring on their Talk page, they said they want it taken to Arbitration.

This editor came to my attention today when I saw that they removed a years-long-standing section from David Hirsh's article. The section is on a concept originated by Hirsh and cited widely in his field. Phantomsnake simply wrote "This is a made up term" in their removal. When I restored the section, PS reverted it without comment.

This editor clearly habitually edit-wars to remove information that they dislike from Wikipedia, and refuses to discuss it (except, I guess, to accuse NASA of faking the moon landing). WP:NOTHERE. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistent NOTBROKEN/NOPIPE violations by a different IP hopper

My last report of this sort was archived without response or action. Anyway, here's another one, partially taken from Chrisahn's compilation:

• User talk:2403:6200:8850:160A:D820:AA6F:7C9C:7917
• User talk:2403:6200:8850:1645:642C:BCEC:8C72:1D7
• User talk:2403:6200:8850:1645:14BB:618A:35BE:CCC0
• User talk:2403:6200:8850:1645:D459:AA8E:1F31:B54E
• User talk:2403:6200:8850:1645:95AB:E064:F46:3C98
• User talk:2403:6200:8850:1645:B94C:771:7661:1A0B
• User talk:2403:6200:8850:1645:844C:CCCC:3C96:717
• User talk:2403:6200:8850:1645:E0C4:D371:EB91:A748
• User talk:2403:6200:8850:1645:9D25:74B4:4D42:7F95
• User talk:2403:6200:8851:45E3:A1BB:87BE:7E00:D973

As with the other case, this editor makes many edits that violate WP:NOTBROKEN or MOS:NOPIPE, gets a warning, hops to another IP in the range, and repeats. This has been going on since June 2024. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick note that the 1645 IPs are probably the same user editing from the same device, since they share the same /64 range (see WP:Blocking_IP_addresses#Shared and dynamic IP addresses) — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 07:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's a list of their contribs, if it may prove useful: Special:Contributions/2403:6200:8850:1645:642C:BCEC:8C72:1D7/64 — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 07:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this! The IP blindly "fixes" redirects, mostly in cinema-related articles, and has been told that this isn't helpful many times since at least May 2024. The IPs are in the range 2403:6200:8850::/47 (sic /47). Very likely the same person. (Some IPs in this range, especially before March 2024, probably belong to other people.) It's not quite vandalism, maybe about half the edits are OK, but very few are really useful, and some are harmful. Clearly a case of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:LISTEN. Quote: "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may be imposed." That's the case here. I'm not quite sure what to do though. If we block the IP range, will the user see a message explaining the reasons? It seems that the person wants to contribute, but hasn't learned how. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I have also been cleaning up after this editor. I have attempted to communicate to them the folly of their ways but it never has any effect. On one hand, bypassing redirects has very little negative functional impact in the present (they are mainly a form of future-proofing) so I think it largely goes unchallenged. The problem with range blocking is that there is nothing to prevent the editor returning on an alternative IP and it can impact innocent editors, but that said the editor is turning into a massive time-drain. Betty Logan (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:PA

• Newcomer1086 (talk · contribs)

Passing abusive language "poojeet" [119], warned but doing again [120]. I don't know why the user hasn't brought Newcomer1086 here yet. Mr.Hanes Talk 09:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

1st personal attack WP:PA derogatory word in local language 1278315287, then after clear WP:NPA warning 1278332541, again WP:PA in english choice word 1278583409. 2401:7400:6020:39A2:B9BD:D312:2E6A:30EE (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

there was 1st WP:PA english choice word at 1240114006 last august, before 2 WP:PA all in this week 2401:7400:6020:39A2:B9BD:D312:2E6A:30EE (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

That seems fairly unacceptable. I’ve indefinitely blocked them, @Mr.Hanes. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 13:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you@Moneytrees Mr.Hanes Talk 13:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

USER:Jamessharison edit warring, disruptive edits and possible WP:SOCKs

I nearly took this to AN3, but their fourth revert was outside the 24-hour window and the possible socks complicate things (see context below).

Page: Black British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jamessharison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [121] Reverted by Marincyclist (edit summary: "OED is authorative and reliable")

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [122] (edit summary: "Better wording and out of context from the source"). Reverted by me (edit summary: "Undid revision 1278107046 by Jamessharison as this is sourced to OED").
2. [123] (edit summary: "The source is being misused and it’s not good for the opening it's like putting or white Britons"). Reverted by DMacks (edit summary: "OED is usually considered a very good source for a word's meaning, and it's not universally known that "Briton" is a synonym for "British people". Take it to talk now that you know at least one (and now two) editors disagree with your removal").
3. [124] (edit summary: "The source is being misused and it’s not appropriate for the opening don’t remove"). Reverted by me (edit summary: "Undid revision 1278284560 by Jamessharison (talk) as removal of sourced content").
4. [125] (edit summary: "Better opening per talk page") Reverted by G-13114 (edit summary: "Not justified on talk page").

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[127].
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on their talk page: [128].
• Edit summaries also included above, including request to discuss on talk.
• Diff of ANI notice posted to user's talk page: [129]

Comments: Editor is a new account that keeps on deleting "or Black Britons" (and a ref to the Oxford English Dictionary) from the lede of Black British people, saying, variously, that the OED is unreliable or is being taken out of context, or that their preferred text is "better wording", despite the objections of four other editors. They have been invited to discuss via edit summary, on their own talk page, and on the article's talk page, but only gave a cursory response which was not substantially different from their edit summaries. I have asked for further explanation, but they have not replied to this yet or to the warnings on their talk page. They have reverted to their preferred text since then (their fourth revert but outside of a 24-hour window, so not strictly a WP:3RR violation).

A bit more context: The text was originally blanked by an IP editor, USER:2a00:23c6:9190:d401:68a6:b943:d63:2b31, on the basis of this being "better wording". This was reverted by USER:DMacks. The same edit was made by a new editor, USER:Johnedwe, making their sole edit to Wikipedia, with the edit summary "unreliable source". This was also reverted, this time by USER:Marincyclist, on the basis that the OED is reliable. Around the same time, a similarly named new account, USER:Harissonsulivan, repeatedly blanked sourced text on the Windrush generation article (here, here, and here), with the edit summaries "better wording", "need a reliable source for that claim", and "it's not in the source below" (it was). Since the Black British people article mentions the Windrush generation in the lede, and given the similarity in the approach taken and edit summaries given by these three accounts, I suspect they are all WP:SOCKs of an WP:SPA. It's possible they simply find the word "Briton" objectionable for some reason, but I've been unable to get them to elucidate. Lewisguile (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Could this person be realted to USER:Historymam / USER:2A00:23C7:C006:7C01:952D:EEE3:4D9B:868 / USER:2A00:23C7:C006:7C01:1462:7948:8352:C0BF? They all have edited overlapping articles, and all seem to be WP:SPAs in the topic of British racism. Lewisguile (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Jamesjakson10 is another similar account. Created today, and they've just restored two otherwise unrelated edits from that IP range, which I'd removed half an hour earlier. Belbury (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

User:VNW060222

• VNW060222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:VNW060222 has been engaging in disruptive editing by continuously restoring unsourced pages, without reason,1 2 3 4 despite previous edit warring warning and attempt to get the user to engage in discussion. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I have looked at the first of the links you give and see that Four-star rank is not unsourced (it doesn't seem to have enough sources, but that's a different thing), that you boldly redirected it, VNW060222 reverted, and, instead of then starting a conversation on the article talk page you reinstated your edit. It looks like, at that article at least, you are the one not following WP:BRD and edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: anyone wanna take a look at this?

You are right, of the 5 sources, two are related to the article, so not completely unsourced. My merging was based on this discussion rather than bold. But I wouldn't call one revet "repeatedly". Skjoldbro (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)