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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Support per Femke. jp×g🗯️ 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and will withdraw my proposal above. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  (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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Support, for the reasons already outlined by the various others who support a topic ban. Axad12 (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• FWIW, the RFC-in-question should remain open for a month. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

  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)[reply]

  (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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

• TimeToFixThis, your recent history at RFK Junior is certainly not constructive. How do you explain this edit from today [32]? 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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 [33]
• 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)[reply]

This is an update on the issue raised [34] 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 [35][36][37] I then restored the article to its pre-edit war condition [38] and asked both of them to stop edit warring and come to article talk [39] [40]. I also created an article talk section [41]. 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 [42] - appears a reasonable inclusion but still no communication on it [43] - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's usually not what SPA implies, but I would also appreciate an answer. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That seems to be a list of people who have opposed your edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems they all belong to the Soka Gakkai... Btw is it your case ? Raoul mishima (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry, but who asked you? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kelvintjy (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Can you named the administrator whom you quote said about me? Kelvintjy (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [44] Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

( 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rdcarlsonwalden11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rdcarlsonwalden11 (talk · contribs) continually adds unsourced or unsupported text, specifically about titles of monarchs. They have received plenty of warnings on their talk page about this but they refuse to communicate and simply restore their edits and continue. Presumably they were editing as an IP earlier. Take for example the article Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor where an IP created a section on titles on 5 February. Rdcarlsonwalden11 (created the following day) then proceeded to add to this. I checked the cited source now and did not find this information in the source. Rdcarlsonwalden11 removed the citation and restored one of the titles after I reverted them and added the fv tag, then they continued to add to this, then they decided to simply re-add the same citation without the fv tag. Mellk (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning at the user's talk. Let me know if edits are repeated without a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Mellk (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I noticed what seem to be repeated edits at Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor by Rdcarlsonwalden11 and 190.83.197.90. I haven't examined the details but left a final warning at the user's talk. Please check the edits and, if necessary, add to your explanation at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: So far, they have not responded on the talk page even though I have asked them for a source. Instead, they have just continually changed the citation. They last changed it to biography.com. Just the front page. Mellk (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving a block for the moment after having left a message for the IP. I will monitor. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Regarding Rdcarlsonwalden11, they have changed the citation again and are just re-using one of the citations in the article. Like before, the source cited here does not support what they have written about the titles. This is probably the sixth or seventh fictitious reference they've added to this article, and again, they have not responded to my questions on the talk page.

I am concerned that all their other edits follow a similar pattern. I took a look at Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor and in this edit (as an IP) they added a section on titles and re-used some of the existing citations. Mellk (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I'm sorry to drag this out, but since my comment at User talk:190.83.197.90#Warning, the only edit of the user or the IP is this at Janet Leigh. I have reason to believe the user might eventually hear the messages they are being given so I don't think admin action is desirable now. Thank you for your work at Talk:Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor#Titles and please revert anything you think is dubious, perhaps with an edit summary including "see talk". I will act if needed after this post. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I believe that IP is a different person, or did I misunderstand? But I suppose since Rdcarlsonwalden11 has not made any further edits since that message anyway, a block is not yet necessary. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but both might need monitoring. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note this seems to have been an issue on almost all the Hapsburg monarch pages. The titles sections were either created, in the instance of Charles VI where random sources were used [49], or Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily [50]. This had been done on every monarch I checked, would some kind of mass rollback be possible? Endor60001 (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no good way for a mass rollback because people like me have no clue about whether text is reasonable or not. Please remove anything you think is inappropriate (no need to agonize about it—assuming you have even a tiny bit of knowledge about the topic, just restore whatever version you think). You might use an edit summary like this: remove unsupported changes per [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rdcarlsonwalden11|ANI report]] Let me know if new problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m having problems with editor Mr.choppers [51] who reverts every edit I make on anything to do with Cars.

Some background. Mr.choppers and I had a previous dispute resolution resolved in June 2024 titled Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV, 2nd article down [52]

This was resolved with a compromise, future edits were to use the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions guidelines: [53]. This allows the UK and USA to use Horsepower hp as the primary unit of engine power and the rest of the world to use the SI unit kW for vehicles manufactured after 1980. Prior to 1980 the primary unit could be hp or PS with kW added worldwide. The strong national ties were to be based on the manufacturer headquarters location.

I personally find many examples on Wikipedia that do not follow the Automobiles/Conventions, so I edit them to comply. Lately Mr.choppers has reverted multiple edits up to 3 times within 24 hours, Volkswagen Tiguan: [54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58] [59]

Mercedes-AMG GT [60]

[61]

[62]

We have had a long discussion on Mr.choppers talk page under "Convert template Order=flip" (near the bottom) and "Convert template" just below it [63] regarding this problem where I have asked specifically what it was he wanted? I find his replies condescending. I only realized after another editor clarified that what Mr.choppers wanted, was the correct punctuation provided by one particular convert templates. But even using the convert template he wanted, he still reverts every edit I make stating I have deleted something that was not there to start with. See [64].

Some of these edits take 2 hours work and it’s difficult to find where it is Mr.choppers finds fault in a large edit. Reverting is easy, but fixing it after a revert is time consuming with the information provided by Mr.choppers. I find his attitude disruptive and not conducive to improving articles. He appears to follow me around so that he can see what I have been editing. He states he follows lots of pages, but when I’ve checked to see if he’s edited something previously and found he has not been there, the next day that article is reverted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avi8tor (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avi8tor, please sign any comments on noticeboards, discussions or talk pages so that other editors know who is talking. Leave your signature. Also, check all of your diffs after posting because the ones I checked were incorrect so I stopped checking them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is with how to use the convert template when there are three units – which gets a bit complicated when you are also changing the order of the output. I have given Avi8tor copy-pastable examples of how to do so on numerous occasions, including at their talk page. I also listed the specific problems with the edits, including before and after examples, side by side. An uninvolved user even chimed in and created a table, showing how and why Avi8tor's edits were wrong. I have frequently repaired these punctuation issues, but Avi8tor has been introducing these errors to hundreds of articles and I realized I was not getting their attention - which is why I began reverting instead, in the hope that they will take notice and stop introducing these formatting errors.

As an example, in the two edits reversed here, Avi8tor randomly removed "hp" in some locations, replacing it with only kW and PS, while they removed PS in another place, replacing it with only hp and kW. here they also changed the input unit from 210PS to a converted unit, causing the power to read incorrectly as 209PS. Here they changed the kW from the correct 103 to an incorrect, rounded 100. There is just a general carelessness about numbers, punctuation, and output. They may be editing from a smartphone, making it hard to see what the result of their edits are. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the links to show changes. Avi8tor (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please add one colon when you respond, it makes the conversation easier to follow. Your response seems to have been deleted in a sweep of hidden changes, I think you will have to redo it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avi8tor either refuses to get the point or is incapable of understanding the issue. Mr.Choppers has tried to explain it to them several times, and Stepho-wrs provided a clear and helpful table indicating how to use the convert template to get the proper result. It is not up to other editors to clean up Avi8tor's errors - reverting them is justified in the face of their refusal to use the template as instructed. Nothing actionable here against Mr.Choppers - but Avi8tor is risking being sanctioned for their behavior. --Sable232 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point, the the discussion in July 2024 covers the rounding accuracy of the conversion. The discussion on Mr.choppers talk page I initially thought was about the same problem, it was Stepho who kindly pointed out it was to do with punctuation generated by the convert template, which I had not noticed or considered. The problem with having numerous incidents on the Noticeboard page is you can update something and because someone else has edited elsewhere while you're busy it is not accepted. Start again! ˜˜˜˜ Avi8tor (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You state ""Avi8tor randomly removed "hp" in some locations, replacing it with only kW and PS, while they removed PS in another place, replacing it with only hp and kW"". When I click thru your link, I see all 3 units listed, does not look like I removed anything. ˜˜˜˜ Avi8tor (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avi8tor - you need to look at the output, not the input text. Look at what shows up after your edits.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sable232 also needs to note: "One of the core Wikipedia guidelines that facilitates editing is assume good faith. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, in the discussion on the talk page "I asked what is it you are trying to display?" Why is the semi colon and parentheses position important? A reader is interested in only one of the displayed numbers, depending where they live. ˜˜˜˜ Avi8tor (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has turned technical in a way that will be lost of the majority of editors who browse this page. Can these matters be sorted out amongst editors working in this subject area? My only recommend is to include an abundance of civility when explaining differences of approach or skil with other editors. I think this complaint is really demanding better communication among editors rather than any behavioral sanctions. Try to be patient and then more patient so we don't have frustrated editors turning to noticeboards to iron out differences that exist among well-intentioned editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, which is why I didn't bring it here. It is hard to communicate with Avi8tor; I posted precise examples of what the punctuation, output, and rounding problems are and he just barrels along, assuming that I am arguing about something else (see quote below). I agree that he has some WP:IDHT and WP:CIR issues, because two other editors who are familiar with the technical issues in question had no problem comprehending what I was saying and explaining it further.

The discussion on Mr.choppers talk page I initially thought was about the same problem, it was Stepho who kindly pointed out it was to do with punctuation generated by the convert template, which I had not noticed or considered. I even included a how-to which gets the result Avi8tor wants without errors in my comment when I first reverted. I will be even clearer with him from now on, if at all possible.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the discussion in green is from whom? Avi8tor (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi8tor: I don't know, but I do know how to use a web browser to search for text and it seems to be a short way above. If you have any general questions about {{convert}} please raise them at Template talk:Convert. If there is a disagreement at a particular article, discuss it at the article talk page. This has dragged on too long and your "from whom?" question indicates that continuing would not be productive. If anyone notices further problems, please let me know. There is no need for further discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user has been repeatedly making edits in violation of WP:OR [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71] some of which have been escalated to an article talk page, where the arguments against them have been ignored (in this instance, they simply responded with an WP:IJUSTLIKEIT reasoning for restoring their edit, and haven't responded to my rebuttal, restoring their edit anyway). They responded to one of my edits (removing unsourced material with an edit summary saying You can’t just delete anything you want to because it’s unsourced. Ignoring the WP:OR policy that All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

They've also violated MOS:SOB on several occasions [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], which, once their edits were fixed (not reverted by the way) to avoid the link-grouping, they disruptively restored their revisions without addressing the MOS:SOB issues with them, accusing myself and other editors (such as User:Nikkimaria) on multiple occasions of vandalism [78], [79], [80], a blatant WP:AGF violation. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous AN/I report of User:ErickTheMerrick from just 20 days ago. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure ErickTheMerrick's actions warrants an ANI, but he's one of a number of editors that make large amounts of edits to political infoboxes based on opinions and hunches, assuming that because 'X' party is left or right in one context a completely different 'Y' party will have the same left-right position in a different geographical and historical context. For me, since left-right axis labels are incredibly subjective, the best would be to remove them from infoboxes and categorization schemes altogether. --Soman (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Soman that this sort of infobox WP:OR is bad, and it seems to be a major focus of this editor. And I agree with GU that their contributions to talk-pages are vapid and unreasonable: in addition to the ones mentioned by the OP, one will search in vain for the use of reliable sources or valid policy arguments in this discussion, for example. Then there's also the low-grade edit-warring [81] [82]. This person should be escorted away from these activities. JBL (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [83] [84] is a completely inappropriate personal attack. --JBL (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context for new contributors joining discussion, this is the diff for the reply that JBL is referring to. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry thanks, I've fixed the link. EtM has declined a request from Liz to participate here, writing I don't really have anything to add there that I can think of. I stand by my edits and what I've said, though some of the language had been harsh, I've restrained from using vulgar language as to not warrant an actual ban. I do enjoy editing on Wikipedia so I wouldn't want to be banned from it, but it isn't really in my control right now. I am having trouble thinking of anything short of an indefinite block that would be appropriate under these circumstances. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have since changed my mind on this (obviously as I am now commenting here) and I would like to say I worded this pretty badly. I do not stand by all of my edits. I do acknowledge that some of them could be considered possibly violating wikipedia rules. I will try to follow these rules more strictly from now on to avoid this type lf incident from occurring again. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErickTheMerrick, But if you did not try to go and find what the rules are before your change, why make the change? This whole thing could've been avoided if you showed that you are able to comprehend and read the rules. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has mostly been due to a differing interpretation of the rules on my end. Though this discussion has been pretty eye opening on exactly how the rules are interpreted. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you are wanting to know what the policies and guidelines mean and how they are applied then you can ask your mentor, any admin, or on the talk page of the article. You can even go to the teahouse to ask the question. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you fornthe resources. Also, my mentor? I was not aware that I have one. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can check Special:Homepage but you need to have the newcomer feature dashboard enabled in preferences to see it. There, you should be able to see your mentor. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's not great, but I strongly believe that they deserve mention in the government infobox as the regime was one ruled by the party and therefore, the ideologies would have also been held by the party. appears to me to be an open acknowledgement that what they're doing is WP:OR. -- asilvering (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is not WP:OR. I provided sources to back up the claims of totalitarian dictatorship in Communist Albania. I just thought it should be added due to the extent of the totalitarian control and the duration of it (1946-1985). Plus, many other totalitarian countries have totalitarianism within their government infoboxes. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErickTheMerrick, the trouble here mostly seems to be in that I just thought it should be added. If it's your own idea, and other people are telling you it's WP:OR, it's probably OR. -- asilvering (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would this constitute original research thought? It doesn't appear to break any rules and it is sourced. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErickTheMerrick, OR is "breaking the rules" by definition. If the source doesn't say it explicitly, don't put it in. -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does say it though. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do admit, I did go to far in that message, yes. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this so it doesn't get archived. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 20:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this again, would really appreciate it if an admin joined the discussion, pinging recently-active admins @Liz @Zzuuzz @Malcolmxl5 @Rosguill @Secretlondon – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this. Secretlondon (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a textbook WP:IDEOLOGYWARRIOR --FMSky (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me or Erick? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erick. And yes, there seems to be a habit of accusing other users of disruptive editing / vandalism for no apparent reason (1) FMSky (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it a disruption as they completely removed the ideology infobox instead of letting far-right with a source be there instead. But this has already been sorted out and we both added sources. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I did not see I was replying to the person of which I thought made the disruptions. I am sorry for misjudging and mischaracterizing you. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this label applys to me ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not try to come to my edits with an agenda, I come to them with fact and evidence in mind. If anything seems to fot this description, please do show me. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that you clearly fit this description, yes: An ideology warrior is an editor who spends most of their time on Wikipedia altering the ideology field of political infoboxes, or altering a party's/individual's political leanings within the body of the text. Please have another read of that linked essay, especially the "Official standards and guidelines" section. -- asilvering (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say I am "textbook" or "clearly fit this description". I add sources for most of my edits of political ideologies/positions so this doesn't seem to be breaking rules. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I add sources for most of my edits, I'd prompt you again to read WP:IDWAR#Official standards and guidelines as FMSky already has. Here are some examples of your edits that contain original research (either by including sources that don't directly support the conclusion or by excluding sources entirely).

[85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, those are just some of the hundreds of edits I’ve made, mostly with sources ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of those edits mentioned DO have sources ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, hence why I said either by including sources that don't directly support the conclusion or by excluding sources entirely. Including any old source isn't enough, it needs to be a source that directly suppports the conclusion, which several of your edits are guilty of. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 21:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErickTheMerrick, you don't get a pass on original research just because not all of your edits are original research. I think you should avoid editing infoboxes until you have a better handle on sourcing expectations on Wikipedia. Would you agree to voluntarily avoid doing so? -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to make edits in infoboxes only if they are sourced. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, you should agree in any case to only make edits in infoboxes when they're sourced. But the issue is that you're making edits that you believe to be correctly sourced, while the sourcing is in dispute. I think this is something you will learn to do over time, but continuing to make this kind of edit is going to keep bringing you into this kind of conflict. -- asilvering (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them were me reverting some edits gladstoneunknown had made. Also, is his removal of content like here not rule breaking? Are you not supposed to simply label it with "citation need"? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Using a cn tag is usually desirable but it is absolutely not required - unreferenced material can be removed at any time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 → [100] Reversion by DACartman without explanation → [101] My attempt to restore correct info → [102] Another unjustified reversion by DACartman → [103] My unanswered message on the Talk page (over 1 month ago) → [104]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

In several articles, particularly Starship flight test 8 and SpaceX Starbase, there are several IP's that are changing mentions of the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America". The community has already reached a consensus about which name is appropriate, yet these users won't stop. This has happened numerous times. I have asked them to stop on their talk pages. They don't respond. I have also posted a vandalism notice in the article's talk page itself, and the issues continue. I would post a report on the WP:AIV page, but this is happening with multiple users. Also, once we report a user, it seems that, while that user stops vandalizing, another user continues in their footsteps, creating this endless cycle of reverting and undoing that gets in the way of actually useful edits. None of these vandals have an actual account, and none of these vandals have made a single edit other than the name-changing. It's a huge inconvenience for actual editors, and there is nothing that prevents it from happening repeatedly in the near future. Is there something that could be done to fix this problem and give it a more long-term solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadien1867 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the vandalism is great enough from unregistered or new editors, and there are few constructive edits from them, then semi-protection can be used. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction: IIRC one vandal had an account, but it had only made 5 edits ever, and the last edit before vandalism (which may very well also have been vandalism).

Also, SpaceX Starbase is already protected. Redacted II (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There exists an edit filter(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/1338), although there is no action attached to it at the moment. Maybe request QoH to attach a disallow action to it? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

There's this IP-hopping vandal who always deletes random characters from random pages, at a super fast pace. An example is Special:Contributions/81.38.231.79. I've already filed multiple AIV reports on this, and some IP addresses this vandal uses have already been blocked, but this one I've linked is still making tons of disruptive edits. Can this please get some attention? User3749 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting here, I had to mass rollback those edits twice already today, so much that my contributions page is getting flooded with those edits. I think this vandal has made 50+ edits already? User3749 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is blocked and AIV has been cleared so all the reports there have been handled. Is this now concluded? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they may come back any time soon given they appear to be using proxies, but I think it is safe to close this for now. User3749 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User3749 @Malcolmxl5 - Are they still continuing this? I'm not seeing anything pop up in AntiVandal right now. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 19:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not seen anything for 30 minutes. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back again now, Special:Contributions/213.27.22.156. I wonder if it is possible to make an EF to prevent this? User3749 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another Special:Contributions/102.211.128.205. Yes, an EF may be helpful. At the very least, one could flag up these edits if not stop them outright. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be active right now. Again. I agree with the idea of an EF. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 18:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke too soon, they are back now at Special:Contributions/46.138.62.62. User3749 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, they are persistent. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will see how this goes, and if I see anything from this vandal again, I might crosspost this to WP:EF/R. User3749 (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Special:Contributions/95.174.107.143. I think this could be them as well, but they are removing way more characters. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 18:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely this same vandal, as they also use proxies. Crossposting this to EF/R shortly. User3749 (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this was already forwarded, but are they changing the method they do stuff now? Special:Contributions/196.217.159.174 is getting flagged for persistent spam. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 15:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Admins,

I am reaching out regarding the actions of User:Lulakayd, who has recently moved and nominated several of my created pages for deletion. Given their relatively low edit count and apparent lack of prior active contributions, I am concerned that these nominations may not be made in good faith and could be an attempt to target my work.

I would appreciate an admin reviewing this situation to determine whether these actions align with Wikipedia’s deletion policies and guidelines. If necessary, I’d also like to understand the best way to address this. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) You need to give diffs as evidence so that we don't have to dig through edit histories and such. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all of these moves and nominations he/she made today are all on the pages I created. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give a list:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghirmay Abraham
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikechukwu Arthur Anoke
• Draftified Draft:Ketshephaone Jacob
• Draftified Draft:Miller Matola
• Draftified Draft:Paniel Meat Processing
• Draftified Draft:Deniz Kent
• Draftified Draft:Busisa Moyo

All of the above articles were created by 24eeWikiUser, and all of the actions were done today by Lulakayd, over... a 5 minute period? I'll take a look into this. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that most of these articles are about African businesspeople. Africa is very under-represented on Wikipedia. but businesspeople are very over-represented, and tend to try to get a Wikipedia article about them at all costs, so, 24eeWikiUser, I have to ask whether you have been paid to write these articles, or are expecting payment for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I want to make it absolutely clear that I have never been paid to write Wikipedia articles. My contributions focus on improving coverage of underrepresented topics mostly related to Africa. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I first came across 24eeWikiUser's contributions during New Page Review last spring and have since then had a number of concerns about the editor's understanding of notability, promotional editing and copyright and most recently a BLP vio, using OR to extrapolate a birth date. There are several instances of copyvios that have had to be revdel'd (see diff, diff, diff) and the editor is currently blocked at Commons for repeatedly uploading copyrighted material. That said, while I keep an eye out for unambiguous policy violations like copyvios, I have stepped back from nominating any of 24eeWikiUser's work for deletion due to their accusation of WP:HOUNDING (I believe it's a false accusation, but I don't want an editor to feel hounded regardless, so I let other New Page Reviewers make the determination. I will note that 24eeWikiUser has on at least one occasion gone to a specific editor to request their pages be reviewed. 24eeWikiUser has also repeatedly removed a notability tag from one of their articles without discussing it first, which indicates a potential desire to avoid scrutiny.) I have not done a WP:BEFORE on any of the articles in this thread except for Draft:Deniz Kent, which I think is non-notable, but given the track record I would not be surprised if any of these has a significant notability problem. However, all this explanation of my history with this editor is preface to saying that Lulakayd's edits are clearly not being done in good faith. After more than a year since their last edit, they opened a baseless SPI and then in the course of five minutes conducted five draftifications and nominated two articles for deletion, all of them 24eeWikiUser's. There is no evidence of WP:BEFORE searches and the nominations are both WP:VAGUEWAVES. While I would usually agree that 24eeWikiUser's articles do not pass notability standards, these ones do not qualify for draftification and given that this very thread is an implicit objection, under WP:DRAFTNO they should be returned to mainspace. The articles are all referenced, even if many of the sources are promotional or primary, and while they have a promotional tone, I don't think they are in the unambiguously promotional territory that warrants unilateral draftification. Given the apparent lack of thought in the AfD nominations, I would be OK with an admin closing them as speedy keep with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Dclemens1971. I appreciate the feedback and continue striving to align my edits with Wikipedia’s policies. However, the actions by Lulakayd seem unfair, lacking WP:BEFORE research and targeting only my work. I support restoring the affected articles per WP:DRAFTNO and request admin review of Lulakayd’s actions. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, Lulakayd needs to show up here to explain their actions. I would support Lulakayd being blocked for disruptive editing if they come down with a case of WP:ANIFLU. And 24eeWikiUser, you should be aware that when you bring a case to AN/I, editors will often look into your own history. I do not see recent improvements in avoidance of copyvios, and I also don't see you asking for advice on sources and notability as has been recommended to you before. And while I will take you at your word that you are not a paid editor and do not have conflicts of interest, the promotional tone of your biographies and articles about companies raises questions like the ones Phil Bridger asked above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Dclemens1971. I remain committed to improving my editing, also I’m open to any guidance. It would be good if Lulakayd explains his/her actions. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lulakayd is an editor who has made 92 edits since January 20, 2023. Their first dozen edits were to fiddle around with their user page, break a paragraph into two paragraphs, combine two paragraphs into one paragraph, wikilink the word "summer", and the like. On May 8, 2023, their editing pattern suddenly shifted gears and since then, all of their editing with the exception of a botched sockpuppet investigation has been devoted to nominating articles for AfD and draftifying articles. Some articles were deleted and some weren't. On November 8, 2023, they installed a draftification script and started moving articles to draft space. On November 18, 2023, they nominated Uju Kennedy-Ohanenye for deletion. She was a cabinet official in the government of Nigeria and the keep !votes were unanimous. After a 15 month wikibreak, they created an unjustified sockpuppet investigation yesterday, February 25, 2025, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newatlascamels. Then, immediately, in a period of FIVE MINUTES, they made 29 edits, all related to deleting and draftifying articles, as describe above. Lulakayd has never made a substantive edit to improve an encyclopedia article. This is one of the most bizarre editing patterns I have ever seen, and I am having difficulty assuming good faith. I think the editor owes us an explanation. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Cullen328 for reviewing this situation. Lulakayd’s editing pattern, as you outlined, raises serious concerns. Lulakayd should at least explain their actions; otherwise, I request admin action to prevent further bad-faith edits. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, the OP was found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on Commons in order to upload photos in evasion of a block, and the sock accounts have been indeffed there. The same accounts edited en-wiki to add photos to articles created by the OP. I will leave it to admins to evaluate any additional actions on en-wiki. Meanwhile, I recommend an indefinite block of Lulakayd for disruptive editing until they are willing to discuss their actions and/or appear at AN/I. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971, You really know that the claims of sockpuppetry are unsubstantiated. My edits to Wikipedia were made in good faith, I ask that any actions against my account be based on clear evidence, not assumptions. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear evidence, with diffs, has been offered. It has been offered and accepted by admins at Commons. No assumptions are in play. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971, it might be a good idea to nominate this articles at AfD, they all seem very WP:PROMO. I don't think it would be hounding to nominate all the articles in question. Their comparatively similar scope makes the case the can be considered as one collective issue. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous thank you. Mass nominating these articles without proper WP:BEFORE research risks violating WP:HOUNDING and WP:POINT. Each article should be assessed individually based on notability and reliable sources, rather than as a collective issue. I encourage fair and policy-based evaluations. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While there should absolutely be a proper WP:BEFORE, implying the risk of violating WP:HOUNDING and WP:POINT is just a little bit trending towards protesting too much. Right now I would strongly encourage you to stop digging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is well noted, thank you. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

87.18.95.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings and continued after final warning. IP was blocked for 31h on February 16, and behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the IP violates under WP:RS and WP:BURDEN guidelines. That's why, the IP continued to disrupt the three articles without looking a notable sources as I observed this. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Carpenter (talk · contribs · count)

This user is doing some good work, however I've warned them a number of times here and twic here for the same issue. I don't like bringing stuff here but, just need someone to assess the issues. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user FlightTime has been harassing me endlessly of late, threatening me with being banned when they are not an administrator. They have falsely and repeatedly accused me of vandalism, which I was NOT doing, I was editing and adding more reliable sources. This user just doesn't understand that if simply don't like someone's edits it does not make it vandalism. If anyone can assist with this please do, thanks. Eric Carpenter (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I totally messed up your talk page, however the issue still stands. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Carpenter Please do not C/P a users signature anywhere. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last warning I gave this user (That I totally messed up trying to fix) was meant to be a final warning for WP:NOTBROKEN which is here. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Carpenter, those messages are not harassment. You've been receiving various warnings, from various editors, because of problems with your editing. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, FlightTime, for some reason, you provided diffs of your warnings to the editor but not diffs of the edits you are finding problematic BY the editor. Don't make editors reviewing this complaint comb through their contributions searching for what you are concerned with. You need to lay out your argument with evidence that supports your claims, not just allude to problems that might exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Liz: that is the Kevin Costner NOTBROKEN revert I warned Carpenter for. Here it is again Special:Diff/1277658410. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issues with User:Abishe previously in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#Abishe's problematic article creations, which didn't get much reaction. Looking at his most recent creations now, I see again too many serious issues. I described them in User talk:Abishe#Copyright violations and other issues, but considering the serious and recurring issues, I bring it directly here to plead for sanctions, at the very least removal of autopatrolled, but preferably a mainspace block.

Their most recent mainspace creation was Draft:ACUMER, which has a number of copyright violations (the ones I could easily spot have been listed on their user talk), plus some other issues like NPOV ("Iran had abandoned SWIFT to pursue greener pastures"?). Poor writing, one of the issues I raised previously as well, can be seen in e.g. Govi Thaththa, something like "The film is based on real life incidents which unfolded in the backdrop of farming and delves into the topic based on the real life situations faced by a typical farming community which hails from a prominent hamlet called Unagalawehera."

But what brought me here was the mainspace article before that one, Draft:Acumer polymer, which starts with

"Acumer polymer also simply known as Acumer is a typical flagship brand of polymer manufactured by Dow Chemical Company according to a quick Google search supported by a verified claim through Artificial Intelligence." (Emphasis mine).

After 8 years, 37000 edits and more than 2000 new articles, one would hope that an editor would know better than this. Fram (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• About time someone cared to bring this issue here. I support an indefinite CIR block for long-term issues with Abishe. Dympies (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Umm. Busted, one might say :( --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even where the article is decently sourced, spot-checking some creations reveals a shocking amount of oddly written, unencyclopedic writing that has never been addressed.

• In Mohammed Qahtani, He gained significant traction and was a centre of attention in public speaking forum when he was adjudged as the outright winner of the Toastmasters International World Championship of Public Speaking in 2015 and He utilised his strong essence of humour, which had been his strength when delivering his public speeches at Toastmasters to counter the weaknesses of his stage presence and vocal delivery.
• In Richard Madley, The auction which he conducted at the World Trade Centre was subject to a massive terrorist attack on 11 September 2001, famously dubbed as the 9/11 attack, and the building was demolished exactly eight days later after Richard Madley had hosted an auction at the building. and Richard Madley rose to prominence and limelight for his professional conduct of IPL auctions.
• In Craig Rich, He received spotlight and acclaim for exposing the true story behind yachtsman Donald Crowhurst, whose disappearance from his trimaran in the mid-Atlantic was shrouded in mystery, before being confirmed to have committed suicide. and Although his job requirements initially specified to cover weather forecasting at Spotlight, he was fast-tracked to provide his knowledge expertise in other news stories circulated in the agenda of action items including 1979 Fastnet Race and the 1981 Penlee lifeboat disaster. The colleagues who worked along with him at the BBC insisted that Craig Rich would bring a sense of humor and laugh riot in the newsroom even amidst stressful circumstances.

These aren't cherry-picked as the three worst articles, they're simply the first three I checked, and I had to narrow the awkward writing down to the two worst ones. Reading further, there's more WP:PEACOCK than in NBC's ads for a year. These wouldn't be so bad in isolation, but these types of phrases basically fill up entire articles. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Abishe from article space pending discussion on whether they can fix the issues raised above or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed autopatrolled, as that is reserved for those who don't need NPP review and is really there to reduce the load on the reviewers by removing known good article creations from the queue. Some of these articles definitely could have benefitted from review. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone ahead and removed NPR for the time being, not that it's been utilized much by them (last 100 pages marked as patrolled goes back a bit over 2 years). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the blunders of mine for having breached the policies in writing Wikipedia articles in an unencyclopedic manner. I admit my wrongdoing and shortcomings especially when writing articles. My editing style changed a lot due to my own exposure to Toastmasters International where I took up grammarian roles to come up with thought provoking words and I decided to use these terms very often in daily life and the interest in Toastmasters has also translated into this kind of editing habits of mine in Wikipedia platform. I know this is an unacceptable response to a serious investigation proceedings against me. My adventurous nature in trying to utilise the lesser known vocabulary English terms and words in real life has become a huge gamble where I have come to an extent of losing my editing privilege due to the misusing and abusing of autopatrolled rights. I know that I am under immense scrutiny for my style of writing which has frustrated many editors. I apologize for this sudden shift in mindset of mine as my passionate interest in trying to elevate the content has eventually backfired resulting in mediocre output. I was somehow convinced that I am doing a fantastic job by creating long lengthy articles, as I got a sense of pride and self satisfaction when I pushed beyond my usual best. But what I now realise is this is not what was expected from me when a plethora of Wikipedians have been critical of my work and then I acknowledge the fact that my cognitive bias got the better of me. I falsely assumed that I am doing an amazing thing by sharing knowledge to the viewers. I was so dumb that I was so confident with my writing skills thinking it will help me to believe myself and to create a benchmark for myself. I got a reality check and I have tarnished my own reputation. I accept to let go off my ego and let go off my autopatrolled rights, but I beg another chance for me to prove my mettle and come back well with a more clear mindset. I agree to the sanctions like stripping off autopatrolled rights, but I am appealing got me to get back to editing mainspace articles. I hope I can resurrect myself and revisit the basics. Please don't blacklist me and please don't ban me for lifetime. I want to emphasize that I am keen on writing but yeah I do agree at times pointed out by Fram that I had violated copyrights. I will try to overcome these drawbacks of mine. I am an ardent reader having read self-help books including Don't Believe Everything You Think by Joseph Nguyen and after reading it I got a kind of enlightenment that I should trust my instincts and do what makes me happy while the book emphasizes on thinking leads to suffering. I do read lot of e-books, internet articles where different authors come up with different vocabulary usage and I decided to incorporate such words in articles thinking that this could encourage me skills of English proficiency. Abishe (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So are you not fluent in English? This response is not LLM, but it’s rather wordy. Wikipedia is not the place to learn English. Have you tried Simple Wikipedia? 164.52.251.114 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is excited to use lesser known vocabulary English terms is not going to do well on simple-wiki. It's not "the wiki for people who aren't good at English". -- asilvering (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The writing style is an issue, but it is probably less concerning than issues with copyright, and sourcing using llms. I picked a created article at random, Weerodara, and found some close paraphrasing, along with the article text going a bit beyond what the source said. CMD (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An important thing to remember is that one key aspect of giving speeches (or writing) is to write for the audience. A lively speech and an article in an encyclopedia are two very different things. I share your fascination with words -- I write for a living -- and adore words like jejune or tatterdemalion that have a timbre distinct from other, similar words. But writing for an encyclopedia is not that kind of exercise. Adding in that this is a language that you're learning makes flowery language even more dangerous, because even in a low-context language like English, a non-native speaker can miss similar words that read in very different ways.

I suspect if you slowed down a lot in the writing, and focused on function over form, some of the other issues would be easier for you to clear up. An admin would obviously have to agree, but if you could take a few of your articles, and clean them up on your talk page, with functional text and no copyright lifting, I believe it would get you a long way towards getting your full editing rights back. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing the above, but I'd suggest that you use a user subpage rather than your talk page, since you're only blocked from mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert101032 (talk · contribs) - 2 previous blocks for adding unsourced content to BLPs, but continuing despite recent warnings. We need a longer block. GiantSnowman 19:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artinmeysamiraad (talk · contribs · logs) is completely non-responsive regarding their edits to bios, which have almost all required reversion. They have made 100 edits and have already gotten blocked for a week for 3RR vio on an article that clearly does not need their help.[134] It does not seem to have influenced their behavior at all, as they still do not communicate on talk or via edit summary, and they are ploughing ahead exactly as before on Abraham Lincoln.[135] Whether they WP:CANTHEARUS or aren't here to build an encyclopedia, it seems there's not much anyone can do about it. Remsense ‥ 论 21:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean WP:IDHT? Ahri Boy (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope—they're editing on mobile, so it's possible they just don't see any messages they're getting. Remsense ‥ 论 21:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in why you think a pronunciation key being added to this article is an issue. - Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, inquiring minds can consult the edit summary where I plainly stated what the issue was. Remsense ‥ 论 22:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the question because I missed your explanation/edit summary in the midst of all the edits & reverts. But I do thank you for your incredibly kind and polite response. - Shearonink (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Artinmeysamiraad from editing articles and left a message at their talk saying they can be unblocked (no need to consult me) as soon as they agree to discuss disagreements and not edit war. They were recently blocked for a week for edit warring. Communication is required. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

I have concerns with LukeWiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his to another and a 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 [166] [167] [168] [169] [170]. 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 [171] or these at flag protocol [172] 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 [173]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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 [174]. 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 [175]. 17:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessintime (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

ThantBhoneHtet1123 (talk · contribs) has numerous warnings about adding uncited material to articles, and they've just done it again[176]. It's not vandalism exactly, so I can't take it to the vandalism noticeboard. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

  (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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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 [177].

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Realityteav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Realityteav has been edit-warring on all of the Survivor articles in violation of MOS:ACCESS and MOS:COLOR. User:Masem, an administrator, has already explained that these edits are inappropriate and in violation of the MOS, but Realityteav's responses have been along the lines of "I like this" and "other articles [are in violation], so I don't see why these shouldn't be as well", and we are approaching WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. I thought this issue was settled back in 2022, but here we are again. Relevant discussions regarding the issues with these tables are spread out over numerous Survivor articles, including Survivor:Borneo, where Realityteav and his IP sockpuppet reverted edits five times on February 18th. If an administrator could please impress upon Realityteav that MOS:ACCESS is not a suggestion, that would be great. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets have continued to attack these articles. I am not reporting all 49 seasons to RPP until the root problem has been addressed. An examination of edits demonstrate that User:Realityteav and IP 199.250.237.52 are clearly the same person. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that the removal of the colors per the MOS had been previously discussed and decided by consensus (likely at the survivor bornoe talk page archives), a move I know survivor fans did not like, so this seems a long tail extension of that given how fast the colors were added from earlier revisions. Masem (t) 16:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 97.77.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Visaa11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See [178][179][180][181]. Janhrach (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2405:201:304F:B814:57B:3B15:3852:DAC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The government of Maharashtra already proceeded to take legal action against the wikipedia. I give them donation everytime they beg and that's why I am here., here
They aren't here to build an encyclopedia with this comment and the edit warring in the 2025 Prayag Maha Kumbh Mela article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try your best XD was their reply to the notice
𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a legal threat by the logged-out editor. It is a reference to a 21 February 2025 news story covered by the Business Standard,^[182] and others. He/she is not claiming to work for the state government.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

donating for their cause to ban this site doesn't sound like they're here. Also, look at their newer edit summaries 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of that was different from your's. I thought that Loveforwiki was saying that he/she gave a donation to Wikipedia every time a begging message appeared on his/her screen.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on mobile so I couldn’t file SPI for now but definitely is a sock of Hindutva Notatall00 (talk · contribs) and Loveforwiki (talk · contribs) given delusional self-righteous tones and accusing people of being leftists, Islamists and white supremacists at the same time. Borgenland (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention sour-graping, WP:WHATABOUTISM and WP:OWN behavior on Masjid al-Haram. See [183]. Borgenland (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone recall the link to Loveforwiki’s SPI archive? I’d like to haul them in while they incriminate themselves. 19:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Borgenland (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loveforwiki/Archive — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was like the Wild West of edit-warring on two articles from both the IP and some experienced editors who should know better. Do not get drawn into these revert battles or several editors here could have found themselves blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a fresh warning, the user Sonipatiya kept engaging in disruptive editing. he even attempted to delete the copyright tag, copied material from another website and pasted it onto a wiki article. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dam222: Would you be so kind to post some WP:DIFFs please? And ideally also the URL of the page they copied from. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[184] Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That content was added here (a quote that occurs in both is for example engraved on it on 21 April 999). Polygnotus (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit they add content including the string months in 18th century and defeated them on several occasions which was taken from https://mark-horner.com/index_2.php?location=jhajjar Would an admin be so kind to block them for not understanding copyright, I'll open a WP:CCI. Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Sonipatiya. Polygnotus (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus, you need at least five instances of clear copyvio to open a CCI. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Asilvering. I think it will probably be not too difficult to find more. Polygnotus (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For someone with under 200 edits total, it's probably better just to clean it up the normal way (RD1 and CSD requests), since if you go to the trouble of writing out a CCI request you're probably most of the way through their edits already. I've pblocked from mainspace for now in the hopes of getting them to a talk page, so there won't be any more (yet). -- asilvering (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yeah I haven't really encountered many posters of copyvio before, and this is my first CCI report, so I am probably not using the most efficient approach. Polygnotus (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user, Aryan Bagkar who currenly seems to have deactivated/or temporarily been blocked a second time in last 24 hours has been engaged in edit wars and continues to revert edits to include content without citations and sometimes the included content is contradictory to the cited content. The user also removed the cited content that has been vetted by an advanced user a few times on the page Yesubai Bhonsale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sn cgh (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sn cgh, you didn't post a notification on the User talk page of User:Aryan Bagkar as you should have done or presented the community with any diffs of disruptive editing to review. It's also quite unusual for an account that has been active for only 3 days to come to ANI and ask for another newer editor to be blocked. Also, Aryan Bagkar is not blocked and has never been blocked.

Did you edit here with any other accounts or are you active on other Wikimedia projects where this dispute has been ongoing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your own User talk page is full of messages, your time would probably be better spent responding to that feedback rather than opening complaints on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, I have responded to the messages on my feed.

in case I have not, it means I do not disagree with the reversals of my edite. Sn cgh (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

please see the Talk of @Aryan bagkar again. They have an ANI posted there. The User is again active (so if he was not blocked then he probably deactivated himself), and on his talk page, I have made the required post.

Please find the diffs below which have been changed several times

1. [185]

2. [186]

3.[187]

4.[188]

5. )%20was%20the%20wife%20of%20Chatrapati,-Chhatrapati

6. [189]

7. [190]

8. [191]

9.[192]

10. [193]

in the below edits, the user has changed the quoted text from the references list and also removed the page number.

11. [194]

12.[195]

13. [196]

14.[197]

15. [198]

16. [199]

Now addressing about it being unsual that a new editor would create an ANI on another new editor, if you looked at the history of this page, you would clearly understand why this was done.

I requested on the talk page of the editor, on my own talk oage, on the talk page of the article to resolve this, but the editor kept reversing edits and replaced that with uncited information as well as information contrary to the citation. These edits were then made by an experienced advanced user and @Aryan Bagkar still reverted those edits with no edit summary at all each time.

I asked for protection of the page as well. As I am new, I may not have succeeded I suppose, I will try to request that again.

Under such circumstances, it should not be considered unusual for someone to request a ban on this user if the page is left unprotected and the way it is being edited and the content made available on it is jeopardising the integrity of the platform.

I therefore request you to please consider this. Sn cgh (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to put the ANI message I posted on @Aryan Bagkar talk page in form of a diff.

[== ANI ==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Blocking the user Aryan Bagkar for edit war and adding content without citations. Thank you. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)] Sn cgh (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff to the ANI notice posted by LunaEclipse at User talk:Aryan Bagkar#ANI.^{00:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)} -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then I indeed failed in the attempt because the user seemed not to exist at the time I was trying to add it (he seems to be active now). Sn cgh (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The version before this edit war started made more sense to an uninvolved reader than either editors' preferred version.^{10:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)} But the citations in the lead probably do not support the current text, and the "Life and struggle with Mughals" section is uncited.

Sn cgh has looked at some sources, and discussed them on the article talk page. These sources are present in the 06:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC) version of the article, though Aryan Bagkar has changed the spelling in some of the quotations from that used by the sources. In that version the citations have been left at the end of the paragraph, rather than placing them against statements they support.

Sn cgh has said that he/she believes that some of the uncited statements are things happened in films that depicted Yesubai Bhonsale.

If this went to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, it is likely that both Aryan Bagkar and Sn cgh would get blocked, because they have made similar numbers of reverts - though Sn cgh has discussed their edits on the article talk page and Aryan Bagkar has not.

Perhaps we should go back to the version of 10:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC), and Sn cgh should change his/her tactics to avoid getting blocked. Instead of deleting unsupported statements that he/she thinks are wrong, why not add {{fact}} next to them, and use citations to sources he/she has read to support statements that they clearly do support. If there are statements that are nearly right, he/she could propose a change to them on the talk page, explaining how the sources support the proposed new version.

If Aryan Bagkar carried on reverting without discussion, then there would be a clear case for blocking just Aryan Bagkar. But I hope that it does not come to that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal and this is why I have refrained from making any edits to the article after discussing it on the talk page with @Toddy1.

I have limited myself to only adding ^{[citation needed]} (which was also removed without discussion by @Aryan Bagkar) and for any real edits to the content itself, I have preferred to extend the editing request to @Toddy1. Sn cgh (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I came to this thread because I was pinged by User:Cinderella157 about another RFC close: [200] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[201], following this discussion[202]. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 [203] close, for example, is plainly poorly articulated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  - "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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

"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[204] I received one complaint, but three public thanks. Another close[205] the complaint was from a participant in the discussion who argued for the opposite outcome of my close, they pinged[206] 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[207] following a discussion with an editor on my Talk page.[208]

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  "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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

"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)?[209] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support Tban; dissatisfied with their reply [210], we don't need determine a good or bad NAC by your thanks log [211]. 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See [212] with edit summary "Widerøe was. The launch customer and it operated this type. Any attempt to remove the Widerøe name from primary users will be met by legal action from Widerøe.". The main users field of the aircraft infobox is reserved for the airlines with the largest number of a given aircraft in their fleet, for which Widerøe no longer qualifies in this case. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

/64 blocked 2 weeks for legal threats. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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: [213] [214]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple comments on Bosomba's talk page, such as [215] [216], now deleted; plus discussions at Talk:Twi etc

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [217]

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)[reply]

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!"
• 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!"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]