Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
@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]
@Simonm223: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly WP:GF reasons for them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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 ifEarth 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.
@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 BushrangerOne ping only01:49, 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]
I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. However, that does not change the fact she has been one of a literal handful of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in WikiProject: Climate change over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.
With that in mind, I would like to say I have great difficulty assuming WP:GF here - not when the OP editor (Redacted), which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective and when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.
I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of Chapter 16 of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Wikipedia. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BOOMERANG... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that EMSmile has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that Andrewjlockley is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. WP:OUTING concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If InformationToKnowledge is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be they both should be though.
Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. TiggerJay(talk)20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS. The suggestion that being a published academic on a subject constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Wikipedia in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of WP:EXTERNALREL, which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as per (Redacted) is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to WP:SELFCITE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse. [5]
If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Wikipedia. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Wikipedia and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Wikipedia as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for WP:COI that arises as a result.
With regards to SRM has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the version of 15 May 2024). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Wikipedia before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Wikipedia in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for more SRM research in their day job (Redacted). Also, User:Thisredrock explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Wikipedia article (given that it would be against doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
I have been editing Wikipedia for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by User:Thisredrock on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery orDARVO, but I'll respond anyway.
I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to clarify the relationship between the Earth System Governance project (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the campaign for a 'Non-use Agreement' (NUA) on solar radiation modification (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. TERSEYES (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NUA coordination group, [6] seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an oversight on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? jp×g🗯️04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay(talk)04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk·contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The BushrangerOne ping only05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: the diff of them placing it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is here - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - The BushrangerOne ping only07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named User:Johnjacobjingleheimer, then it constitutes WP:OUTING (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Wikipedia being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. jp×g🗯️03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at WP:OUTTING think it would be easier to avoid.
opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.
I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on their admission of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant WP:HARASSMENT and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't WP:OUTING people or contacting their employers. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Wikipedia is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Wikipedia editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.
Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.
BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,
the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.
I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable wikipedia rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.
Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Thisredrock (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[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]
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]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. EMsmile is a paid editor who violated WP:OUTING - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight are highly disruptive - and that's notwithstanding the paid editing. Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Wikipedia to do the curtailing. Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block, support WP:TROUTing EMS for almost WP:OUTTING, WP:TROUTing AJL for aggressive interactions, warning ITK for WP:OUTTING.- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.
the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically WP:WIRCOI suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.
want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi appliesBluethricecreamman (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by Bluethricecreamman - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. Thisredrock (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the thing is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. Bluethricecreamman has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether EMsmile was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Wikipedia for pay. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. EMsmile (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose (uninvolved) there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in simple ignorance (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not WP:PUNISH).
That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, it fails a DUCK test, and looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor. What I see is a properly disclosed WP:PAID editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors. Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't WP:CPUSH going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :TiggerJay(talk)15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: ((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above) 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month, 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI. They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including very questionable off-wiki behavior[7], and never actually citing policy except once where WP:PAID was completely misrepresented[8]. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT recent contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts[9][10]. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month for over 11 years)... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either WP:OWN or WP:SOCK. TiggerJay(talk)15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.
However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for 'potential civil-POV which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like this might come off is overly whitewashing, but China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations. but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does call into need for a closer look, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. TiggerJay(talk)17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group
Strong support. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, WP:NOTTHEM applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that WP:PAID only strongly discourages paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and IMO unthinkable They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests. I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I am much more concerned about undeclared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. LizRead!Talk!22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Wikipedia. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Wikipedia. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Wikipedia . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Wikipedia they are acting as a sock puppet WP:SOCK . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Wikipedia to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates with no opinion on indef block at this time.
From what I can see, Earth System Governance looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the COI guideline: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia". More broadly, we have a movement-wide custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution" (emphasis in the original).
Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination:
August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client.[11] All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA.
Nov 18, 2024: EMsmile added the name of Frank Biermann, her client's founder, to the SRM article.[12]. When you have a COI, this kind of edit is PR/marketing. Her edit summary was ""copy edits, added wikilink", i.e. there was no indication of substantial or COI editing in her edit summary.
Jan 15 2024: When challenged about the NUA-related content, EMsmile responded with a ~600 word wall of text, followed by a ~400 word wall of text, followed by several shorter comments, all about advocating for more NUA content than other editors wanted.[13] Tne persistence and sheer amount of text are not in line with WP:PAYTALK , which says that COI editors must be concise and mindful of not wasting volunteer editors' time. Several of her comments also cut up another editor's comment, in violation of WP:TPO.
When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks."[14] I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil.
EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Wikipedia now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Wikipedia editing policies.." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page."[15] Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Wikipedia to advocate for your client.
I looked at Earth System Governance Project last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG.[16] She has according to the authorship statistics written 73% of the article, in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.
I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below
ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Wikipedia but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Wikipedia as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Wikipedia to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Wikipedia. The opportunity is to improve Wikipedia articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction.
Hello User:Clayoquot, we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of WikiProject Climate Change. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (Earth System Governance Project (which is an alliance), nor the concept earth system governance itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Wikipedia article about themselves, neither do they have a website.
FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: earth system governance and Earth System Governance Project, then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).
FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.
If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for Earth System Governance Project apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from earth system governance? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?
Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Wikipedia articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.
Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks in this thread but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Wikipedia in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." EMsmile (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't paid editing or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are directly adding quotes from the project's mission statement, which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact they even use the same website, which states that [t]he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community. This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to WP:COI/N, or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they do make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. edits that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:23, 19 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]
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]
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."
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]
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 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]
(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]
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]
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]
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. LizRead!Talk!06:35, 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]
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]
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]
@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]
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]
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]
@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]
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]
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?
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]
I'm copying this over from the thread that led to the reopeneing as it didn't get much discussion before we moved back over here. I've decided to take a break so do what you will with it. BeeblebroxBeebletalks20:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to re-open this after the incredible length of the previous thread, but since we're here:
There is another issue here. Not so recent, but for years EM smile was blatantly canvassing people to make specific Wikipedai edits.
Just in case anyone is concerned about outing, it isn't. As I said above, none of this is particularly recent, but if it had been noted at the time, all of the other recent drama might have been prevented. This is absolutely blatant canvassing. BeeblebroxBeebletalks21:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is suspicious -- saying, effectively, "let's all go make this article useful to us". As I clicked the next couple links, I don't see canvassing, though. I see someone consulting external experts to encourage them to edit or to suggest edits to improve an article. That's something many of us have done when editing articles that benefit from expertise (like many science topics). In this post, I see someone trying to convince an expert to contribute, using standard wiki-evangelist language you'd hear at an edit-a-thon. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated fresh start is needed if this is to be continued
It has been open a long time and was brought back from archiving, a close review requested (causing the closer to reverse their close) and marked to prevent archiving all by the same individual. The editing restriction section was when a (apparently grant-type) PE arrangement was in place on the subject articles (the end of which was announced Feb 17th) and a portion of that section was prior to the self-imposed voluntary restrictions being put into place. If restrictions are to be pursued, IMO an updated fresh start is needed to reflect the current situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[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. LizRead!Talk!05:23, 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]
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.
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]
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]
In an attempt to focus this conversation and help bring it to a close, I'm explicitly asking for more responses to this question here. Please note the comments immediately above this heading. Is the voluntary commitment posted at User:EMsmile#Voluntary restrictions sufficient to address the community's concerns? Or do we need further action? — rsjaffe🗣️17:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficient. Thanks for stepping in. As I said to EMsmile two weeks ago, "Your userpage updates are an improvement but still well short of 6.9 million articles. I don't want to see, for example, you adding the names of ESG people or ESG-related initiatives like the NUA to any articles. "[25] She did not respond, which suggests that she may want to make these kinds of COI edits in the future. I am also concerned that she describes the voluntary restrictions as her response to questions regarding a "possible" poorly managed conflict of interest. She still has yet to acknowledge having violated the COI guideline. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: Yes, I have continued editing the SRM article (since 17 Feb in a volunteer capacity), as well as editing other Wikipedia articles over the same time frame. I was told above by Clayoquot: "It wouldn't stop you from bringing this article to GA or FA status - in fact it would probably help." You can see from the SRM talk page and the edit history in the last few weeks that a few of us are working nicely together there, in a highly collaborative and joyful manner, regardless of who we work for (or who we worked for, in my case), and regardless if we are "pro SRM" or "anti-SRM" (notice the recent COI declaration and connected editor declaration of TERSEYES who has written 49% of the article). The sentence that you call here "contested material" had not originally been added by me. It was removed by TERSEYES as part of a larger edit. My suggestion was to put it back in and I had written in the edit summary: " I think the statement was important because a) it had a source whereas the para before doesn't. Secondly, it shows that already in 2009 (not only in 2021) is was regarded as a dead end solution." It can be discussed on the talk page if we do need this article or not.
NB, my voluntary restriction relates to the non-use agreement and how it's mentioned in the SRM article, not the SRM article in total. As far as I can see, Clayoquot and others have not said above that they want me to stop editing the SRM article. EMsmile (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jgera5 has responded on their talk page and appears to be communicative and understanding. It appears the referencing issue was a lack of understanding of how filling in references works. I'm going to close this, if the problem continues/recurs another ANI can be opened (preferably by another editor). - The BushrangerOne ping only02:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We're talking about an editor with >10,000 edits, a >10% revert rate in their latest 500 edits, no comments on any article talk page since 2022, and a litany of complaints on their user talk about sourcing and speculation. A block from article space may help us start some communication. I wonder if a CIR block may be necessary, as they still drop completely unsourced content in articles January 12—Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC). Addendum: going back a few years, their reversal rate was much lower (10 vs 60 reversals per 500 edits). I wonder what has changed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was rude, but that's not a personal attack. "Dude, what the fuck, leave me alone?!" is a failure to be collegial. "Dude, you're an idiot and your articles are full of lies and you should log off the internet forever" is a personal attack. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:ANI|user:Jotamar reported (once again: known from previous disruptive and belligerent conduct in pages regarding Portugal and or Spain). Because of continued, poor 'corrections' on the Atlantic diet page with short-sighted, incorrect and counterproductive 'contributions': instead of accurate or constructive content, in acceptable English, this user has a tendency to disrupt and manipulate facts in matters that they do not appear to known enough of. Because this is well over the 3rd reversal, this editor has been reported for vandalism. Not the first time: it was made abundantly clear on past incidents that no interaction is wanted from my end because: Wikipedia needs editors up to standard, not vandals whose contributions are distorted, nationalistic views on topics, and whose conduct is absolutely unacceptable. Melroross (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC) I have removed the {{ANInotice}} template that Melroross mistakenly appended to the end of this compliant instead of posting it to the talk page of the user reported. Someone else has already helpfully noticed the user reported on the behalf of Meloross. MolecularPilot🧪️✈️01:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Melroross, you are expected to provide diffs or links to specific edits that violate policies and guidelines. Did you read the notice at the top of this page that says This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems and also says If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page. Have you discussed your concerns at User talk: Jotamar? I see nothing recent there. I know that you have not discussed your concerns at Talk:Atlantic diet because there are no conversations there. Your comment above indicates that you think that edit warring and vandalism are the same thing. They are not the same and accusations of vandalism require convincing evidence that you have not provided. In conclusion, you need to provide much better evidence that intervention by administrators is required. I am unconvinced at this point. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Melroross: accusing other editors of misbehaviour without providing evidence is a personal attack. Please do not complain about editor conduct on talk pages like you did at Talk:Atlantic diet. Talk pages are for improving articles, not for bickering. I hope we can avoid a WP:Boomerang sanction here for battleground editing. Can you please remove your personal attacks there, Melroross? And withdraw this complaint, as there seems little merit in it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Femke, if you look at the activity on this Article: I did not start reverting and used sources (not always ideal, but generally accepted) which were either conveniently omitted or interpreted from a fixated lens. You will also see that apart from going from a Stub, I have gradually gathered data and added new sub-sections and created the same article in several other languages. I do these contributions on and off, voluntarily and in good faith and fairness because it gives me enjoyment, away from academia. What I will not tolerate is a pattern of resentful, targeted reversals and consistent cynical, passive-aggressive conduct. I have encountered some very unpleasant situations with editors over the years: without fail Spanish and sometimes Brazilian. This particular editor has been interfering with my contributions for years. I trust and hope that you have advised them to refrain from warring and cultivate common civility. If I never have to interact with or witness more pointless reversals, I'd be ecstatic. Thank you for reading. Melroross (talk) 10:49, 22 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 [29]. 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 [30]. Since then, Wikieditor662 has posted 24 additional comments mainly to challenge users who support keeping the consensus version [31]. User Moxy
already warned Wikieditor662 about bludgeoning two days ago [32], 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.
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]
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]
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. LizRead!Talk!21:26, 22 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]
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]
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. LizRead!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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
@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.
TimeToFixThis, your recent history at RFK Junior is certainly not constructive. How do you explain this edit from today [33]? You marked that edit as minor. The most lenient interpretation is that you do not understand what a minor edit means at Wikipedia, which is already somewhat problematic. I recommend you to read WP:MINOR. Per definition, if anyone might disagree with the content of the edit, it is not a minor edit. Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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.
Ehhh. Since Jan 1, I count 4 Woolly Mammoths, 1 poophead, and a shockingly somewhat useful erudite edit to BBC One. And they seem to be losing interest. Looking back to 2024, a couple of bad edits a month. Range block seems to be overkill. If they persist in perseverating SD Zoo Mammoth edits, perhaps a page block would be ok. But currently, I'd just watch and wait. — rsjaffe🗣️01:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User admits to hounding in their veiled talk page reply, and I would request a block per WP:NOTHERE. They are upset about me nominating a page they created for deletion and also filing this SPI. Right after the SPI was closed, user nominates a page I created for deletion. This page is well outside the topic area that user edits so I asked them about it on their talk page which they stated "first of all, how does it feel to be wronged multiple times?" --CNMall41 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
Stop lying.
- I never admitted to hounding or anything of the sort. Yes, I looked into your article creations out of curiosity and found an article that I believe is not notable. If that qualifies as 'hounding,' then there shouldn't be a public tool available to check that information. On the other hand, you have been hounding me and reverting my edits ever since I started editing.
- You nominated a page that I edited, not one that I created.
- I made the nomination before the SPI closed - look at the timestamps again. I had no way of knowing that the SPI would close almost a month and a half later on the same day.
When I started editing an upcoming film article, you did everything you could to undermine me, assuming that I was a sock. You accused me in multiple places without any proof, yet the SPI closure ultimately proved you wrong. You were also proven wrong in your actions regarding the article. The editors at 3RR also pointed out that your actions were inappropriate.
As a new editor, I am frustrated with this hostile behavior and the constant presence of your name on my talk page. And after all this, you're playing the victim?
I request that the admins seriously review his attitude toward other editors and his tendency to assume that everyone he dislikes or oppose him is a sock. A quick look at his talk page shows how he treats people who question his actions.
I was completely demoralized by this hostility and was waiting for the SPI to close. In the meantime, I made some edits, clearly noting that they were without references, yet you reverted all of them altogether, citing the reason for just one edit. You didn’t even bother to check properly before reverting my edits.[35] That is what real hounding is.
Now that the SPI has been closed against his wishes, he has started a new accusation here. This kind of immature and hostile behavior should not be tolerated in a collaborative project like Wikipedia.
I demand a short ban on this editor to make him reflect on his language and behavior, as well as a permanent ban from my talk page. Shecose (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, you can't demand anything. We're volunteers, and you cannot force anyone to do anything. Second, you have already asked CNMall to stay off your Talk page. That's the extent of a "ban" in this caes. If they violate it, you can then seek an admin to deal with the issue. But if you're only doing that because they're reporting issues with your editing, that's not going to reflect well on you.
Third, do not personally attack other editors, as you did with calling CNMall's editing immature and hostile behavior.
Finally, CNMall looking at your editing after a dispute and finding a problem is not itself WP:HOUNDing. But your immediate retaliatory nomination of a page for deletion is clearly a WP:POINT violation, and it's very clear that's what you meant it as. Especially with your Talk page comment first of all, how does it feel to be wronged multiple times? You filed that deletion nomination specifically to "hurt" CNMall, and that's disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your feedback. I withdraw the word demand and replace it with request. Sorry that I haven't given much thought before writing that.
To clarify my comment, "how does it feel to be wronged multiple times?", it has nothing to do with the article nomination. The nomination is simply calling for a discussion, as CNMall was not wronged there until the outcome. What I meant was their aspersions and arguments about the previous article, as well as their accusation of sockpuppetry against me on various places.
Additionally, I don't understand why the word immediate has been used to describe my nomination. The SPI filing and edit conflicts happened a month and a half ago, and my nomination was not a reactionary move. CNMall is falsely claiming that I nominated the article after the SPI closure, which is simply not true.
Imagine being accused of a crime you haven't committed, how would you feel when you are cleared? Now, how would you feel if the same accuser comes back with further accusations? Shecose (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is reasonably concerning, at least, when a brand new editor comes to Wikipedia and their first-ever edits are almost entirely restricted to a relatively obscure draft page for a commercial product (which films are), which happens to have been previously deleted as not notable. This is unusual editing behavior, or more precisely is very typical editing behavior in connection with coordinated commercial activity. Whether or not that is the case here, CNMall41 was reasonably justified in his SPI suspicions, and the assertion that you "looked into [his] article creations out of curiosity and found an article that I believe is not notable" does come across like you went looking for something to nominate for deletion out of personal animus. You need to be cognizant of how these things appear in the context of a project where long experience has tended to connect such behaviors to ill motives. BD2412T05:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better if you had dug deeper before making assumptions or accusations. The article was already live when I first edited it, and it was either the same day or the very next day after its teaser was released. I searched for the article after watching the teaser and edited.
If you consider his behavior normal without even acknowledging how it might have affected me, then I don't have much else to say here. Shecose (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Live or not, it is reasonable to air suspicions when a new editor engages in the predominant activity of working on a single article on a commercial subject that has previously been controversial. BD2412T18:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't live as the user would have you think. I moved it to draft space as it had been recreated by SOCKS many times (noted in the AfD dicussion). Shecose moved it to mainspace and then changed the name right after due to the many deletions of the page under "Toxic" and variations of "Toxic." Hence the SPI filing which user believes was me harassing them.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said that when I first edited, it was a live article. It had been moved by @Bolly ka Badshah.[36] When I made my first edit on the article, it was still live.[37] You later moved it back to draft much later, after many more edits from me and other editors[38], which I opposed and moved back while also changing the name, as a longer name was mentioned in most of the references.
It is frustrating to have to explain these facts because it is difficult to tell whether you are deliberately misleading others or simply unaware of the timelines. Shecose (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply looking at someone's edit history, and even referencing it in a single discussion, isn't hounding. Often it's necessary to see if there are serious enough problems to raise them as conduct issues; and mentioning them to the user to try and talk things out before doing so is also reasonable. Hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. That is to say, they have to actually make edits on multiple pages while following you around, not just skim your edit history and raise a concern in one place. This isn't an endorsement of Shecose's behavior, which at a quick glance may have other problems, or their accusations, which at a glance may be WP:ASPERSIONs and have other issues. But it's not hounding and it's important to establish that fact, since if what they did was hounding then it would be impossible to enforce conduct-based policies at all because nobody could ever check to see if they're being violated or raise potential issues derived from someone's entire edit history. Hounding requires actually "poking" the victim in multiple locations, so to speak - the crux of it is about disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason, not privacy, since edits histories are public information. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, which is why I raised the issue on editor's talk page prior to wasting anyone's time at ANI. It was the response which caused me to come here as it shows they deliberately targeted a page because they are upset about the SPI ("how does it feel to be wronged multiple times" - "what audacity" - "and stay off my back now"). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Raoul mishima and Kelvintjy - slow edit warring and non-communicativeness
This is an update on the issue raised [39] 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[40][41][42]
I then restored the article to its pre-edit war condition [43] and asked both of them to stop edit warring and come to article talk [44][45]. I also created an article talk section [46]. 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 [47] - appears a reasonable inclusion but still no communication on it [48] - 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]
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]
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]
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. LizRead!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. LizRead!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]
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
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. LizRead!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.
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]
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 ?
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 Systemeven 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. [49]Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing it. It was also my mistake that I fell into the trap and I started talking about unrelated things. Next time I will try to find the way to report them immediately. AlickyH (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to User:37.155.73.63? I spot-checked their edits and other IPs and saw vigorous arguing and questionable content. I'll impose a short block. You could open an SPI but I'm not sure they are doing anything deceptive since this is not a discussion that has "vote" components. You could ask for page protection if you believe the activity is truly disruptive. LizRead!Talk!20:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good for now. I have not seen any other similar disruptive behaviors from other users/accounts, and the disruption did not continue, so this is all good now. Thanks for the 31. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Behaviour by user that violates multiple behavioural guidelines and perceived failed talk page discussions
User has continued to exhibit behaviour that are actively against Wikipedia's behavioural guidelines. Below is a timeline of diffs (with explanations/violations).
And while an exhaustive, two-way talk page discussion has gone on, several policies and guidelines have been explained to the user (to the best of my ability, with linking), and yet user continues attempts to insert original research (as well as using it as reasons for their point of view of things being "right" versus "wrong", as well as continually deletes the entire talk page discussion ([50][51]) and lastly citing the conversation as "over", while also noting they don't want the conversation to exist anymore. This is highly alarming behaviour during a content dispute where resolution was attempted in a full-day of discussion, and now awaiting potential others to become involved at the same time. livelikemusic(TALK!)20:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to delete my account. The behaviour from the above user is appalling and I can see this is repeated often in talk pages by them just to prove a point and then justify their behaviour with links seen above. I do not wish to engage with this kind of harassment and I will not be forced into a false narrative or using sources that are factually incorrect just to appease someone. I have been part of Wikipedia for six years and my contributions have made a great difference and I've never had an issue like this. I know that this user will continuously follow my edits, try to dispute them and claim it under Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not interested in that. I do not wish to be part of Wikipedia any longer after this experience. Please delete and remove my account. BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vanish works fine. I've never had an issue on Wikipedia until yesterday. I don't want my account to be active or for the above user to interact with me in any way shape or form.BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were trying to explain what was wrong with your edits in the most easy to understand way possible, yet you accused them of making personal attacks towards you. They're not "getting away" with sketchy behavior. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also wish to note, user has said "I know that this user will continuously follow my edits" and I have never interacted with this user until this situation, and participated in a 13-hour talk page discussion until this report was made, and was only made upon the continued removal of the talk page discussion, which showed an unwillingness to cooperate with the processes Wikipedia has established for determining content dispute by way of consensus. livelikemusic(TALK!)00:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) As mentioned previously, your account cannot be deleted as any edits you made must be attributed to it. You can simply log out of the account and never use it again. Some users decide to put the {{retired}} template on their user page or ask for a courtesy vanishing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In their editing career, JC2003D has made 3 edits over the last 24 hours. Unfortunately, we have quite a few editors (mostly IPs) creating hoax articles on nonexistent films and TV series both in Draft space and as orphaned Talk pages. I do not think that these are all JC2003D. It is probably an idea that was suggested at Fandom or some fan site. This is all to say that we deal with these hoax film articles fairly regularly (at least I delete a few every week) so I don't think this individual situation with JC2003D was ANIworthy as a chronic, intractable problem.
During the month of February on the WP:BLP article Tiffany Pollard, there has been disruptive editing by Mars2052. On the talk page of Tiffany Pollard, under the sub-heading "Rampant fan-site copy" and on the talk page of Mars2052, the editor Escape Orbit and myself have requested that the neutrality tag on the page is not removed until there's a consensus that the neutrality concerns have been addressed. Mars2052 has persistently added non-neutral peacock-style / puffery / inflated POV opinions on the article.
Mars2052 has reverted attempts to make the language more neutral, has reverted the tidying up of references and persistently removed the neutrality tag while the issues are ongoing. On the talk page of the Tiffany Pollard article, Mars2052 has said, "I will no longer be responding you're wasting your time" and has continued after that to still remove the neutrality tag.
Diffs of some disruptive edits below where the neutrality tag has been removed by Mars2052. Please see the Revision history of the Tiffany Pollard article for further examples of persistent disruptive editing including reverting attempts to make the language more neutral and reverting the tidying of references.
That looks like a possible solution, but I don't get why pblocks are used for SPAs rather than total blocks. The person doesn't suddenly change just because they edit a different article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly suspect (and I bet most of you do, too) that there is a conflict of interest involved in the editing. On-wiki evidence shows that Mars2025 is interested in a mall relatively close to the subject's birthplace, whose birthplace is listed in the article. — rsjaffe🗣️21:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through this article at lunchtime. Like, Dispatches (TV programme), it's fondly remembered for its groundbreaking format and material, and if somebody could revive the pair of those for a 40th anniversary instead of Eastenders then I'd watch TV a bit more. However, I started to get bogged down in the excessive quotations in the article, which was just too much for a casual read. I then discovered that the principal author, AnOpenMedium openly asserts to be an employee of the production company Open Media, with their own dedicated website. The website seems to be a scrape of our article without an appropriate licence, which is a potential copyright issue, and links back to old revisions of the article (such as this) which contain excessive quotations to the point they could potentially be considered copyright violations. I'd quite like to read the full details of the altercation between Oliver Reed and Kate Millett ... just on another website.
For now, I've trimmed the article back to a previous attempt at cleanup by Hippo43, which was mostly reverted by HarpuaTheBulldog and left a note on the talk page. However, it seems the problems with excessive quotes have gone back several years, so I think the issue needs to be flagged up so other admins can see if there's a problem.
It looks like everybody has perfectly civil and polite when discussing issues, and is trying to do the right thing. It's definitely, notcivil POV pushing, it seems more like a lack of full understanding of the nuances of what Wikipedia's really about. So I think lectures and blocks are definitely not the right cause of action. I'm wondering what is? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember it, Olly was both pissed and drunk, although not necessary in that order. But it was on way past my bedtime, so may have mixed him up with Germaine Greer or someone. Not sure I'm the best person to ask about potential copyvio. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user was warned about WP:NOINDICSCRIPT as long as six months ago, and repeatedly so. However, aside from a spate of incredibly bad comma edits (over several months, despite many warnings; see [56] for the batch from a week ago), they've mostly continued to make widespread edits to force certain languages forward in prominence at the expense of others, in clear violation of the spirit of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, and have continued edit-warring to do so. Here are some recent examples:
I was hoping this would be settled quickly at SPI but since it's been a few days and they're still up to the same bad behavior, I am coming here to request they be blocked. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note also adding material but I'm most concerned with [69] and [70]. One of these was reverted but they removed the same material again. Note they do not seem to speak English but Portuguese[71]. See earlier discussion here.
I'll notify them but I'm not sure they have found their talk page. Doug Wellertalk17:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do edit summaries directing users not to revert them with "(legal issues)" constitute a legal threat? Ratnhastin did just that ([72], [73], [74]). This is related to the Sambhaji hoopla. I wanted to see what other admins thought instead of immediately blocking. EvergreenFir(talk)18:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine a situation where they felt they "needed" to say that. As long as Ratnahastin is not going to re-revert if they are reverted, I think we can let this slide. I don't even know if I agree with their edits or not, but I have quite a bit of sympathy for someone subjected to this kind of threat from an increasingly authoritarian state (give it a few more months, I may even have first-hand knowledge!). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Floq. This editor may be getting advice that they need to show they're trying hard. I wonder if it actually might be helpful to an editor in this situation if they were pblocked from an article. Valereee (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a little wikilawyery, but WP:LEGAL specifically says A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself, i.e., Ratnahastin would need to be the one sueing the editor who reverted them. In this case, Ratnahastin is the one being sued, so asking other editors not to revert is for their own safety in good faith, even if it's still restrictive as the rationale discourages. Tarlby(t) (c)18:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still playing catch-up on some of the discussions about this. Ratnahastin might have been 'asked' to make the reverts with the don't revert. This doesn't mean that other editors can't revert? Knitsey (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the feedback. This makes sense to me that Ratnahastin is not the ones threatening a suit and thus this is not a legal threat. Tarlby makes a good point about assuming good faith as well. EvergreenFir(talk)18:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin: if you haven't already, I would encourage you to contact WMF's Trust and Safety team (using the ca@ address). They may be able to provide some assistance if you have a challenging situation, or alternatively point you in the right direction for other relevant resources. Daniel (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, taking into account that Ratnahastin is evidently being forced to make changes under duress...should we block their account for the time being as being effectively compromised? Revert changes they make with this justification? I'm not aware of any precedent or guidelines along these lines. signed, Rosguilltalk19:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the WMF has already effectively caved to the Indian Government, so I have none of the faith in T&S and Jimbo that others might still have. I'd suggest we just leave Ratnahastin alone, to avoid rubbing salt in the wound. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think those should be reverted if someone wants to (I see Hemiauchenia has done so on at least a few). I mean leave alone as in don't block the account. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I lost faith in Jimbo years ago, after a polite correction I gave him was treated as a personal slight. The man's ego is paper-thin.
I'm inclined to agree with Rosguill vis-à-vis a GF block. Not only would it be in the best interest of the project, but may (though I can't say definitively) be in the best interest of the editor to temporarily lose the technical ability to make or revert edits. As someone who was, myself, sued for a BLP I can appreciate that the editor may not be able to more clearly articulate the specifics of their individual circumstance. Chetsford (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have the option of just p-blocking them from mainspace, which would prevent further disruption without excising them from the community or WP-space work. signed, Rosguilltalk19:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, I agree with you. In fact, I would like to draw your attention on Rajput article and its talk page and articles associated with Rajput caste. For a considerably long time, Ratnahastin has been involved in pov edits and removal of content, which according to them, is derogatory to Rajput caste in association with another user. Since, most of the wikipedia admins are unaware of the social groups of India,they utilised the loopholes to cite technical terms and edit summaries making it appear as productive discussion to do unconstructive edits. This legal issue on the part of Indian government, they are facing has stemmed from the positive and negative outlook one holds for different social groups. Since, Marathas are considered as formidable enemy of Rajputs, I can see why that stuff was added by them on the article of Sambhaji Maharaj, which led Indian government to file an FIR against them. In order to avoid selective disruption on such articles, at least a topic ban is necessary. Tagging Vanamonde93, who was earlier involved in several cases involving Ratnahastin and LukeEmily too for more light on Rajput. Adamantine123 (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a misunderstanding which has been solved. I have contacted the Wikipedia trust and safety team as suggested here, and they have responded. It is literally pathetic of you to find an opportunity to finally get rid of me. Such a battleground mentality cannot be tolerated here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adamantine123, your proposal here is presented as if it built off of my suggestion, but it does nothing of the sort. It also lacks diffs, making it aspersions in addition to opportunistic. This is astoundingly poor form and I'm about a hair's breadth away from issuing a logged warning on the spot. File a proper case if you have one to make. signed, Rosguilltalk04:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A block would prevent them from covering their ass. I don't see why admins would want to get a fellow user in more legal trouble by blocking them. Nakonana (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana, because if they're blocked from a particular article after having tried to "fix" it in a way that corresponds to the wishes of the person who is suing them, that may tend to give them plausible deniability. It's not to get them in more trouble. It's to help them out of trouble. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely: they've already done everything they can do to remove the content in question; we would be preventing them from being further compelled to edit war against Hemiauchenia or otherwise make edits that would not benefit the encyclopedia. signed, Rosguilltalk20:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it is too early to know what to do. We can only speculate, and there's lots of that here, but don't have enough information to go forward. Given the lack of knowledge as to what the best course is, leaving things status quo seems appropriate for now. I also suggest that Arbcom or Trust and Safety make the decision, as they have the proper venue to evaluate such sensitive issues. — rsjaffe🗣️21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fijiower (talk·contribs) is a brand-new account that is closing a bunch of AFDs and signing them whammy rather than with their user name. Sorry for posting here, but the admins I normally go to are unavailable... .and also thought someone here might remember some similar action of which this could be a ban-evading sock or somesuch. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeffed. If they can give a good explanation why there are actually here to write an encyclopedia, and they simply hit all the wrong buttons while testing, I'll listen. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is that "Buick" driver sockpuppet. He would come in with a new account and start closing AFDs as "No consensus". I have a terrible memory for sockpuppets but if a Checkuser browses by, I'm sure they will know who I'm referring to. We're just lucky that this one got caught fairly early before they had closed dozens of deletion discussions. They tended to create several socks around the same time so if you see this happening again over the weekend, please report them here or at AIV. LizRead!Talk!20:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The editor "Theroadislong" is applying extremely heavy handed edits and omissions of material that meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability criteria for musicians and ensembles.
I'm a relatively new user to the interface of Wikipedia. My entire experience with "Theroadislong" has been one with a complete lack of compassion and willingness to help. I've been met nothing but heavy handed judgement, and double speak with regards to what is acceptable and not acceptable.
My reading of this is that Thepublicschoolmusician is attempting to add awards sourced to a non-profit organization. This is a matter that should have been raised on the article's talk page or WP:RSN but was brought to Theroadislong's talk page. Also I note that Thepublicschoolmusician is using ANI as a threat (see Theroadislong's talk page). Departure– (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen all of the background context but overall my impression is that this is an extremely overblown content dispute that shouldn't have been brought to ANI. I think Thepublicschoolmusician should WP:DROPTHESTICK and seek other forms of dispute resolution - and I advise you start at the article (in which the dispute originated)'s talk page. Departure– (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Looks like they did attempt to add the ani notice template to the talk page,[78] but they did so before actually starting the discussion here and also accidentally nowiki'd it. Taffer😊💬(she/they)21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thepublicschoolmusician,
In order to evaluate your complaint, you should provide "diffs" or edits that reflect the problematic behavior you are complaining about. Without being able to verify your complaint, no action can be taken and it's your responsibility to not just say it's happening but show editors examples of where this activity happened. LizRead!Talk!20:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Note that "oversight" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia so it is hard to identify what you are requesting. With that aside, as it says at the top of this page, can you provide diffs that demonstrate the concerning edits you have and specify which policies or guidelines you believe the editor is running afoul of? I want to say that as this has popped up on my watchlist as I'm a TPS of Theroadislong, I have seen Thepublicschoolmusician use some language in this discussion that demonstrates an WP:Ownership of content mentality. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to go into too much detail as you have very likely just pinged all of them to this discussion. (This would be a rare exception to the usual requirement to alert involved parties to an ANI discussion.) There are ways to detect socks through behavioral evidence and the use of edit filters. And admins with check user rights have tools at their disposal that can identify socks. That said, technically it is very difficult to actually prevent account creation by determined sock masters. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
@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 see the sockpuppet investigation is ongoing. The amount of disruption and edit warring going on is sufficient to block from article space at this time pending resolution of the investigation. In the block message, I invited the user to respond here. — rsjaffe🗣️17:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wanted to report some really strange IP behaviour. I've already applied a 24-hour editblock to make it stop for the time being, but I still want to document it because additional eyes may be needed in case they come back with a different IP number or resume the same crap once the block expires. The IP number in question was 209.140.48.22.
The situation is that they'll apply an edit like this, then self-revert their own edit themselves, but then post to the article's talk page, the category talk page, their own user talk page or other users' talk pages to request that somebody else come readd the same categories they've already reverted themselves on, invariably followed by a long string of pings of random users who don't have anything to do with it. (I'm one of the victims they were targeting with the pings, but I'm not the only one, and there's a string of very annoyed "cut it out and leave me alone" messages following the trail from several other editors besides me as well.)
See also [84], [85], [86], [87] and [88] for additional examples of the same add-revert-request cycle.
So, again, I've blocked them for 24 hours but just wanted to notify people here to keep an eye out in case this resumes later today under a different IP or tomorrow when the block expires. Bearcat (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've revdel'd a disgusting personal attack in an edit summary here and blocked the /64 range for two weeks. Unfortunately, it turns out the individual has access to more than a /64, as an even worse edit summary attack promptly appeared here. That takes the problem out of my competence zone. Can somebody do something? The victim should not have to face stuff like this on Wikipedia (compare their pleas here on my page). I've semi'd the article where this has been happening, but that seems unlikely to stop the attacks. Bishonen | tålk09:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Worth noting that Engage01 has already been reported twice at this noticeboard recently (i.e. since 2025 began), here and here, with both reports resulting in sanctions. Though to be fair, the sanction that second time was a two-way IBAN, so not just against Engage01. NewBorders (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved. I am providing context that I find to be potentially useful or relevant concerning this particular discussion that involves you.
If I might make a suggestion, instead of questioning the presence of uninvolved editors that leave their opinion as they are allowed to, you may want to address the issues currently being raised by Borgenland. NewBorders (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was awaiting when you would address these issues and in the meantime see if there are other topics that may be worth editing. If I really wanted to hound you I would have reverted you entirely rather than partially remove irrelevant and undue info in the lead of Jill Biden, not to mention that your edit history speaks for itself, particularly now that you have an outstanding record of misbehavior that was already presented by @NewBorders and which I merely identified as a an example. I suggest you read WP:OWN again and fix yourself before you bury yourself deeper into a block. Borgenland (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to accuse someone of WP:HOUNDING, you must provide diffs that clearly support this. Not only has Borgenland contributed to much more than just this dispute with you, since they have been actively editing here since 2022, and not only have several users complained about your behavior at this point or otherwise questioned your editing, but as far as I can tell, this current discussion only concerns a singular page, 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision. Do you have any evidence that they are specifically targeting you and decided to follow you to this page (specifically to disrupt your "enjoyment of editing", or "the project generally", rather than fixing what they perceived as poor edits, which would be the deciding factor)?
Despite Engage01 (talk·contribs)'s unconstructive way of starting a discussion on my talk page, [95] I explained to them why I removed their unsourced addition. [96][97] They were warned several times to engage with civility and in a constructive manner, [98][99][100] but even then, they continued to demonstrate an "WP:IDHT" behaviour, insisting that others do the work for them and find the sources, continuously insisting that those who disagree with them are the problems and are the ones who are uncivil, additionally stating that: "I am saying please remove yourself from this topic." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m having problems with editor Mr.choppers [101] 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 [102]
This was resolved with a compromise, future edits were to use the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions guidelines: [103]. 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:
[104]
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 [113] 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 [114].
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. LizRead!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 frequentlyrepaired 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]
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]
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. LizRead!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]
(non-admin closure) OP has asked that this report be "deleted", which I take to mean a request for withdrawal. Since it also doesn't seem like there's any appetite for sanctions against Meters based on this, and OP has been informed of proper processes for next time, I'm closing this. NewBorders (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to report concerns about Meters, a Wikipedia user.
"The current year, 2025, is a common year starting on Wednesday in the Gregorian calendar, and the next such year will be 2031"
However, most editors disagree with that edit, and they agree with the one below.
"The current year, 2025, is a common year starting on Wednesday in the Gregorian calendar. The last such year was 2014, and the next one will be 2031"
The problem is that Meters tells others to discuss their edits on the talk page, but won't do it to their own edits, even when removing information like that is disagreed upon, and done suddenly.
What's even worse is that editors who disagree with Meters on information like that by restoring the "last such year" information (because Meters just removed the "last such year" info without discussing it on the talk page.), are accused by Meters of having their edits deemed "non-constructive", even to new editors, as seen in these three links below:
You haven't notified them about this as is required, you haven't discussed this issue with them prior to bringing it here (not from this IP range at least} and this is a content dispute, not a matter for ANI. Acroterion(talk)14:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the claim that Meters hasn't discussed on the talk page is false. Meters has explained why they made their edit here Talk:Common year starting on Monday#Previous example not needed when the current year is of the particular type. No one else seems to have joined this discussion, so I have no idea how anyone can claim "most editor disagree". The way to establish what most editors agree with or disagree with i.e. consensus is to actually talk about it which Meters seems to have started, but no one else seems to have done. So the only thing we can really say is Meters has an opinion but no other editor seems to have tried to explain their position. What "most editors" agree or disagree with, who knows? We definitely do not establish consensus or what "most editors" agree or disagree with by counting how many people participated in an edit war. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To be clear. I don't know if I'd say Meters has been quite perfect in this dispute. In particular, I think a link or mention of the talk comment in an edit summary would have been useful. Also giving even a level 1 disruptive edit warning for a single edit which seems to be basically a content dispute even if the IP seemed to have some idea of the history but didn't join the discussion, was unnecessary. (For better or worse since it's an IP it's hard to be sure any of the previous edits were by the same editor, so it's fair to consider it a single edit.) However in terms of behaviour around the content dispute, the editor who has actually tried to discuss on the talk page is nearly always going to come across far better and closer to "winning" (for lack of a better term) both in behavioural terms and the content dispute, than 100 editors who did not. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geolocation data suggests that there is an IP-hopping SPA with a long history of problematic edits to calendar year articles, but I was wrong to lump 46.7.248.6 in with that user, and I apologize to them. Meters (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 75.186.153.250
I have no desire to deal with this user, despite what they may think--see their talk page. I suppose it was this edit by Bagumba that led them to refer to Bagumba as excrement, here and here. Others on the editor's shit list are SMcCandlish, Bringingthewood, and GiantSnowman--see the history of the user page. Blocked for a brief period for harassment, they chose to continue trolling. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason an 'after the fact' message was sent to him by me was to say that I was the one upset with that remark he left there. I asked Drmies in a way that maybe I could remove that sentence without getting myself in trouble. Drmies took care of it. There are many rules here, and somehow I thought that what GOAT did and continued to do .. with administrators being part of the degradation ... an early block was definitely warranted. I consider Bagumba a friend, and if GOAT comes back as an IP user etc., because he surely won't let the Muhammad Ali thing go, I'd like to have a leg to stand on, or at least an administrator I can go to for help. Much appreciated. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me? On someone's shitlist? Surely you jest! Heh. This certainly brings to mind WP:WISDOM, which correctly points out that when multiple long-term participants in a system are in agreement about the basics of its operation (e.g. how WP policies, guidelines, and community operate) they can seem like a conspiratorial "cabal" or "mafia" to a newcomer who does not understand the established system and wants to buck its workings to get a result they personally like better. In reality, those longer-term parties may be in substantial disagreement with each other on many things that the newbie simply isn't aware of yet. Anyway, I'm well-adjusted to the fact that it isn't possible for any rule system (like our style guide and other WP:P&G) to make everyone happy about everything, and that someone unhappy about some pet peeve policy or guideline line item, when they're not getting traction on changing it to reflect their subjective preference, is going to blame the principal shepherds of that ruleset and claim to be a victim, instead of accepting that their preference and its rationale has not convinced the rest of the user community to accept it as the new rule. If I'm remembering correctly, this person is mad at me because I disagreed with them on capitalizing "the" in mid-sentence when used with nicknames. So, what we have here is throwing your toys out of the pram when confronted with a writing-style matter that doesn't suit one's personal habits. There are psychosocial reasons this happens more often about style matters than other ones, like what sorts of sources are reliable, or what kinds of claims about living biographical subjects are permissible which which kinds of sourcing. Anyway, I don't have enough other experience of GOAT_Bones231012 to !vote yea or nay on a particular approach like an indef; my default with regard to such things is to extend an additional chance after further explanation of policy. It's better to bring a new-ish user up to speed on behavioral norms like WP:POLEMIC, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, than to just kick someone out at first (or even second or maybe third) sign of trouble, as long as the trouble is not particularly disruptive and they might become a more contributive editor. We need more editors rather than fewer, after all. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people have been removing their offending edits while explaining the site's norms. Only weeks later have they been blocked, which still stands at 31 hours. It's on them if they choose to remain petulant. —Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for helping someone out and burying the hatchet in the future. It's sad to say, the horrible way it went with Bagumba's simple message on doing things a certain way, it may take a little time. As of now, if you try to send GOAT a WP or MOS explanation of how to do things, plan on getting the 'Cujo hearing the telephone ring response'. He does not adhere to authority. People want change, I get it ... but rules are rules. Even a thick-headed idiot from the Bronx understands that. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checking this user's talk page, I don't think they seem to have any interest to edit encyclopedically or at least cooperatively. I kindly asked them to make corrections to their additions (which clearly resemble something to be expected on fan websites or sites like Fandom rather than on a serious encyclopedia) in the Dragon Ball GT article, to which they boldly replied that the request is "incorrect". I'd like to ask a more experienced and knowledgeable editor to provide their input on this. Xexerss (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised to find this complaint here. From the beginning, Charliephere has repeatedly created fancrufty, Fandom-quality articles, and vehemently denied that this content was inappropriate even as those articles were deleted or draftified. It took an admin issuing a final warning to get them to stop, although Charliephere kept arguing that low-quality content should be fine as long as it's "correct". (See User talk:Charliephere#Final warning - article creations for the play by play of that conversation.)
If they're now cluttering existing articles with low-quality content and edit warring to retain it, I don't see any option other than blocking them from mainspace—or even a NOTHERE block. Woodroar (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I adhered to it and removed the word "canon". your reasoning for reverting is that it "looked awful", which sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me, everything there has since been refined, but everything there is relevant and correctly cited with wikipedia verified sources that were also present in said article before my involvement, and there was certainly no reason to just wipe it all out, rather than simply audit/tweak it like you can and have done previously. So yes, what you did was incorrect, because it was condesending and wasn't executed in the best way it could have. Charliephere (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charliephere:Two notable exhibitions for the franchise have contained content from the anime, showing off official timelines affirming Dragon Ball GT's place in the Dragon Ball franchise's continuity. At the 2017 Dragon Ball Tenkaichi Budosai event in Japan, Shueisha, the publisher of the Dragon Ball manga, showcased an Official Dragon Ball Timeline Board that included Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball Super, and Dragon Ball GT, positioning Dragon Ball GT as occurring between the years 789 and 889 of the Dragon Ball calendar. This placement establishes Dragon Ball GT as a continuation of the series’ events after Dragon Ball Z, following the defeat of Majin Buu and extending into the future of the timeline. These timelines, endorsed by Shueisha and Akira Toriyama, integrate Dragon Ball GT into the official chronology as a significant chapter of the franchise’s history. What exactly is the encyclopedic relevance of this? (see WP:PEACOCK as well). Do you really think the average reader cares to know about chronologies and "canon" in sections that are merely there clearly to make "related media" mentions? Just like Woodroar said, this is pure WP:FANCRUFT. This is not a matter of liking or not this information, this is pure superfluous information that little has to do with depicting related media. Xexerss (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be context, you can't just say "There was an event that showed GT stuff", it's better to add context, when was this event, what did it do in relation to the subject, is it officially endorsed, what is the actual exhibition etc.
But it's not written as if it was in the universe of the subject, the "Other Media" in question is an exhibition with a literal timeline of the chronology, of course you are going to have to bring up the chronology when discussing an object entirely centred around it (official timeline) Charliephere (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I just started a discussion there as well. I would have started a discussion there before reporting the user here if it weren't for the fact that I read their talk page and edit history and it's clearly not the first time they acted this way. And by the way, adding in a user presentation something like, Users do not like me, because I add any true/verifiable information to articles, despite if they dont think that the sources are "acceptable" is far from making me believe that this is a user with whom one can collaborate constructively. Xexerss (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charliephere, you are entitled to think that a policy is badly flawed. You are entitled to advocate for a change in policy, trying to persuade other editors that your changes would help improve the encyclopedia. But you are absolutely not permitted to consciously violate a policy. Do you agree to stop violating policies, or is it now necessary to indefinitely block you? Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed to stop violating policies with Sergecross, any time I violate a policy now, it is usually by complete accident.
Please read well what you are writing. No matter what you say, nothing is going to make me believe that amount of irrelevant in-universe perspective writing has encyclopedic purposes. I am also telling you that practically most (if not all) of what you added is wrong and you don't even take the time to conform to standards and guidelines yourself. I am not going to correct the content that YOU are adding and much less when it is so bad. And no, telling you to improve something and re-add it when you're sure it's better is not violating any site policy. Xexerss (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not wrong, it is all sourced, cited and checked.
I've also been tweaking it and removing what you've been throwing a tantrum over (like the "in-universe writing" that I dont think much of what Ive done can be classed as, even then the entire Plot section is in-universe writing)
What I told you was to revise and make a thorough correction to the content you added before including it in the main space. I'm not just saying "this is ugly, delete it". You can use your user sandbox for that (which I suggested to you in an edit summary), but instead you are making minimal "corrections" in the main space to what you don't seem to understand is wrong with your edits. Xexerss (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to repeat it again in case you have not understood it yet. EVERYTHING you added is not worded in a way that suits an encyclopedic tone. It's not that there is anything specifically wrong, everything you worded is inappropriate, and I'm telling you to take the time to familiarize yourself the site guidelines and policies and edit in your user space before adding content in the main article. You continue to be unable to have a modicum of self-criticism and acknowledge the problem, not just this time, but based on your own edit history, repeatedly, and since I see I can't convince you of anything, I'm done here. Xexerss (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charliephere:, if you continue as you have been, you will be blocked. You don't want that, I don't want that, Jimbo doesn't want that. So let's avoid that - but avoiding that requires that you change your behavior. Consider this an official advisement: step back from editing, re-read the site policies and guidelines (even - especially - those you believe are flawed), and when you resume editing do so in your userspace, building and refining content there before posting it to a main article. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what The Bushranger is telling you? They are telling you that, despite your assertions you haven't done anything wrong, your behavior remains, in fact, currently problematic, and that it needs to change. They have given you specific advice to that end. Do you intend on following said advice?
Because as someone who also finds the original edits presented here mostly UNDUE or unencyclopedic (and note that not one user in this thread agrees with your assessment that there is nothing wrong with your editing), I would strongly suggest following said advice. NewBorders (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT violations from you guys aside, I have already had this talk, I've cut back editing, fixed what OP had a problem with, and I do intend to follow said advice.
Every article I've contributed to in the last week has been cited by a wikipedia acceptable source, or a genuine mistake if not.
I'm not saying that my editing is perfect, what I'm saying is that the information itself should not be wiped completely like what OP attempted to do, especially on the grounds of "It simply looks awful" or "it's unencyclopedic" or "it's cruft" (all 3 of which are word-for-word WP:IDONTLIKEIT violations that are listed on that rule's page).
If you want me to stop, I'll stop, but I cannot in good faith just let you just wipe information from a page due to not liking how it's worded. Charliephere (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at Charliephere's recent contributions, the less confidence I have in them being a net positive. Their edit of their userpage done during this dispute, their unsourced addition at Reform UK which was reverted, and perhaps most glaringly of all their tendentious continued editingof the very article that this ANI is about (marked as "minor", no less) does not lend hope to a constructive attitude on their part. I am increasingly leaning towards suggesting a WP:NOTHERE block.EDIT: As detailed below, I retract this last part for now.NewBorders (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that this addition was sourced? While I can concede that it's understandable if editors aren't consistently perfect with sourcing their additions, this particular doubling down would be false, and at best, a mistake. Please correct this rebuttal, or otherwise explain accordingly what you mean by this.EDIT: A misunderstanding, perhaps? This is not the correct diff I pointed out.NewBorders (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I now see your associated image. Yeah, that's not what I was referring to. Please review the actual diff I've left, not this one which wasn't the one I was pointing out and thus fails to respond to my statement. NewBorders (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it is a WP:BLP violation, as the edit claims that Matthew Goodwin is a/the spokesperson for Reform UK, while in reality he is a commentator/political scientist who is sympathetic to the party. Fram (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will acknowledge that my (proto-)suggestion of a block is too hasty and was made as an irrational reaction to a few edits I deemed particularly poor; as I have not gone through this user's contributions in detail, I will retract the above, while standing by my assessment that these recent contributions I've pointed out clearly run afoul of several of Wikipedia's guidelines. And while I retract my current block suggestion for now, it might well be reinstated if the user continues to display the WP:IDHT attitude I see in much of their replies. NewBorders (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also retracting the assertion that the diff from the Dragon Ball GT page I've linked to is necessarily "tendentious", as it does look, on second glance, as a good-faith attempt to rewrite their addition constructively. Nevertheless, marking all these corrections as minor, dismissing complaints by several different editors as mere "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", and generally refusing to acknowledge that they might want to step back and get feedback before attempting to add doubtfully-sourced, or even potentially WP:UNDUE, information, remain concerning to me. NewBorders (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, read the IDONTLIKEIT page, OP's commit message when reverting my stuff was "this simply looks awful", and also mentioned cruft, which is word for word an example of an IDONTLIKEIT violation in the list of examples Charliephere (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of IDONTLIKEIT. I have read this thread and the talk page, where Xexerss has, contrary to what you say, given specific feedback to support their view... to which I found your rebuttals unconvincing, and more generally, in contradiction with WP:BURDEN (particularly your claim that there is no reason to just wipe out the article of anything another editor has done - there are, in fact, very good reasons to remove content which fails WP:VERIFIABILITY or WP:DUE, as those policies explain).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
By User:Rtshawnee at Talk:Ridgetop Shawnee#Wiki Page Vandalism must STOP. Clear cut: This vandalism is directly effecting our operations as the misinformation added to this page is causing confusion. Our Chief is also our Attorney from Hazzard Kentucky, We are huddling up to decide what to do if this vandalism continues. We are considering civil litigation, that is a promise. 00:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk • contribs)
Dimitry is an editor that has made AfD nominations and subsequently accused others of being sockpuppets or possessing an undisclosed conflict of interest when they disagree with his nominations. These are serious accusations, but Dimitry has largely failed to provide evidence to back up these serious claims. Separately, Dimitry has threatened to out a user they disagree with.
In this AfD, Dimitry writes that “The article is facing a string of changes where there may be a WP: SOCK”. Several editors — NickCT, Oblivy, Espatie, and myself — warned them that AfD is not the appropriate venue to deal with sockpuppets or editors with a conflict of interest. The only evidence that Dimitry provided in any part of this discussion is that several users have disclosed Bluesky and Mastodon accounts on their user pages, which is plainly insufficient to establish that coordinated edits are occurring. Dimitry then went to ANI (see here) where they were again informed that a.) sockpuppet accusations belong at SPI, and b.) aspersions are not tolerated on Wikipedia.
Then, in this AfD, Dimitry writes that there is “a risk of a COI editor”. They provide no evidence to back up this claim, even though they have been told several times at this point to stop doing exactly this.
A user by the name of HARRISONSST recently commented on one of Dimitry’s AfDs. In response, Dimitry wrote this diff, claiming that “the wikipedia community will discover your real name”. This is plainly a violation of WP: OUTING. As that policy states, this is grounds for an immediate block.
I get that AfD can feel like a complex maze to navigate. There are a lot of policies that may or may not apply in certain discussions, and it can take time to learn the ropes. However, WP: ASPERSIONS and WP: OUTING are also always in force, including on AfDs. The threat of outing makes this issue to meet the standard of “urgent and intractable” that is necessary to bring this issue to ANI. Moreover, this user has been warned several times that their behavior is unacceptable, and continues to persist. I believe that this user should be either blocked from AfD or from editing entirely, but I will leave this for the community to discuss. Even if Dimitry is somehow right about everything they’ve said, the manner in which they conduct themselves — the lack of evidence, the threats of outing, etc. — is unprofessional and inappropriate. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this complex post, I look forward to the rest of the editors who were somehow offended that the articles they worked on were flagged or deleted!
I will now try to answer you as clearly as I can, so that you don't have any more questions for me.
First of all, I am not obliged to provide your evidence, because technically I cannot. And all evidence is sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and processed by the User:331dot and User:Bilby administrators once they have time for it! I mention that all the warnings come from editors who don't know that for every action of mine that I do, strict proofs and explanations are provided!
Anything to do with editor HARRISONSST, this editor tries to get involved in any discussion just to try to block me or denigrate my name (without providing any proof). His concerns are obvious because as I have reported he is a WP:SPA editor (who just directly edits an article and dumps it in the most negative way possible [117],[118]), which the wikipedia community has mentioned.
“the wikipedia community will discover your real name” -- “but in the end the wikipedia community will discover your real name and your intentions on wikipedia!” Please don't just insert the text that suits you! But post my entire expression. The fact that you did not understand the meaning of my expression does not allow you to accuse me of any politics. I'm trying to explain in another format, everything I said was strictly related to what the community will finally understand what is the true face and role of that editor in wikipedia. I mention in no way I did not aim to violate what you presented WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:OUTING!
Now I want to make an explanation for the rest of the editors who will participate in this discussion. I am a COI editor hunter (and for every editor I provide evidence). Also every edit in wikipedia is in good faith (except that good faith ends where there are editors trying to dodge the truth). Possibly and I offended some bona fide editor at the Appin discussion (but I apologized and I mention none of them sought any further explanation, because we all sometimes get it wrong, only those who try to learn something sometimes get it wrong). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread this message three times and I do not understand how most of this content is relevant to this discussion. This is not a misunderstanding. Whether or not you reported someone as a potential sockpuppet does not give you a license to threaten to out other people. And as 331dot has stated below, most of your reports contain woefully insufficient evidence of COI/sockpuppeting anyway. WP: AGF also has reasonable limits: editors may reasonably suspend an assumption of good faith if a user fails to comply with repeated warnings or engages in dangerous behavior, both of which have already happened. It is not an escape hatch to explain away blatant misbehavior.
Separately, this sort of attitude of "we all sometimes get it wrong" is not appropriate for issues of sockpuppeting and conflicts of interest, where sensitive information needs to change hands and users can be indefinitely blocked. These accusations are stressful for everyone involved and can severely tarnish the reputations of other users. This attitude is sensible in the context of content disputes, because edits in article space can be easily reverted. When it comes to disputes involving people, there is no magic "revert" button to undo the damage done to the reputations of other editors. What you've said here indicates to me that you're not willing to WP: LISTEN and take feedback from the community seriously. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dmitry Bobriakov, no one appointed you to be a "hunter" and if you don't stop harrassing other editors you will face a block, likely of a long duration. This has been going on since you created your account, I had doubts then and they have never gone away. We don't need new and inexperienced editors to hunt down COIs, we need content creators and maintainers. Spend your time improving articles not investigating your fellow editors. I don't see any good that has come of your presence on this platform. Correct me if I'm wrong, 331dot and I'll strike my comment. But, frankly, the editors I have known who have devoted their time to chasing their suspicions about COI have usually ended up being blocked or leaving the platform. Find more productive ways to improve this encyclopedia that helps our readers and doesn't annoy your colleagues. LizRead!Talk!17:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following this, but have time constraints at the moment; I can say (and anyone else with access to the COI VRT can look) that most of the time the information provided by D.B. is insufficent for me to take action. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like I'm in any danger, but I was writing about a highly litigious company that used to steal information from people's computers and pass it to governments that could kidnap and torture them. The thing that I find bothersome is this person is accusing editors of being paid and posting notices on their user pages and the pages they've created—without any proof. This is nothing short of harassment. Then, there is this post from an editor who claims that he's running a scam on Wikipedia. HARRISONSST (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get into the discussion. This person has sent two of my articles to AFD. And one of my articles has a COI tag over it. When will this stop? No one can accuse editors of conflict of interest. This is a very serious accusation! Did Dmitri decide to become the local sheriff? Give him a star and block him for a couple days so I can get my nerves in order Pollia (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather do something more useful, like learning how to create and edit wikipdata materials, than write words in my defense here. Pollia (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a revenge backlash now. The article I painstakingly worked on for well over a month and took crap for is being messed up by someone who knows nothing about the subject. I decided not to write any more articles on Wikipedia, but it still sucks to see my article butchered and more nasty stuff posted on my talk page. HARRISONSST (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not my article, but since I put so much effort into it, I hate to see it butchered. It's like any other thing you carefully build. This article is the raison d'être for users like DB, and your edit of the article is the kind of vandalism I'm talking about.
This guy just edited the article with an edit summary this should not be a direct quote lifted from an AP article, it should be written in plain encyclopedic language. The problem is, there are many sources for the article, it took me over a month to read all of them, but NONE of them are from AP. He didn't even bother to read anything. If you see the history of his talk page, he's done this before. HARRISONSST (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. Dmitry's statistics indicate that the pages that they have edited far more than any others are AFDs. Edits to articles in mainspace, at this point in time, do not exceed 4 for any given article. Added to that is their casting of aspersions and other incivil behaviour, in AFDs, as detailed in the diffs above. The editor needs more editing in mainspace, getting to know our policies and procedures before participating in what can sometimes be contentious discussions. TarnishedPathtalk08:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should mention that I understood the recommendations that were made, but in particular I did not edit the main space in order not to be blamed by other editors for having a COI to a particular article or in general to avoid any discussions about editing the main space (because from the beginning and until the creation of the wikipedia account I sent a string of messages to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, in which I was strictly analyzing the process of tagging editors by the admins, which made me learn many things). So, after a while, the admins got busier and busier, and it took a long time before my messages were processed (which is why I decided to create an account and deal directly with the tagging and notifying of editors (to which the admins only had to check the evidence). Also, please check the hit rate at AFD and all articles that were tagged (where most articles were contributed by editors who were involved in COI disputes or notified in the past by other editors). Thanks!--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant. Per above, you are generating lots of reports that are not actionable. Your “strict analysis” is more or less bad-faith opposition research, and the fact that you continue to fixate on your “hit rate” when multiple people are calling for a TBAN is a very bad look for you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For you it may not be relevant, but for administrators everything is relevant because they know more details and can solve this problem. Finally, thank you for all this attention and for voting in this discussion! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention (I have mentioned it so far and will always mention it). I have common sense and discuss extremely nicely with editors who by their editing history show that they are bona fide editors!
Support. Please note that an editor with 100+ edits should not have the kind of knowledge of wikipedia policies that I need to google for. I'm sure he had/has other accounts and a lot of experience. Pollia (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you, but the point is that if you look at the history of this editor's edits, you can see that he has not contributed anything constructive. Only destruction. It's a Maleficent. Pollia (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I clearly indicated that I learned a lot from this process from special rights editors). And thanks for the mention, yes I read wikipedia policies more - than I edited articles with a potential COI. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as I know, you don't have any special rights to insult other editors and threaten and violate wikipedia rules and policies. Have a good day. Pollia (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not already your concerns (the attacks that are made by you, HyperAccelerated and HARRISONSST I try to overlook because I understand that at times I was not comfortable for you). In case you feel insulted, it shows that you still have something to hide from us (because otherwise you can overlook it without being so active). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it shows that you still have something to hide from us" You do realize that this is exactly the behavior you've been told several times to stop doing, right? Wrapping veiled accusations in meaningless niceties like "thank you for all this attention" is not what anyone is looking for here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am here to report the recent actions of User:GDX420. In the past 24 hours, he has nominated several articles for deletion without properly doing a Google search or taking WP:BEFORE and WP:CONRED into account. He nominated the Munachi Abii, Victor Thompson and Adeoye Aribasoye articles, all of which are notable. This user has failed to read the criterion outlined in WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:NPOL. User:GDX420 has also chosen to vote two times in the same AFD. Evidence of this behavior can be seen here and here. In this edit to his userpage, which was done today (February 22, 2025), he claimed to be a proud member of Wikiproject Nigeria. I find this odd because he never edited Nigeria-related articles prior to February 21, 2025 per his contributions page. Someone who has not edited Nigeria-related articles prior to February 21 cannot be a "proud member" of Wikiproject Nigeria. In the last 24 hours, he has nominated more than seven Nigerian-related BLP articles. I don't find any of this a coincidence. In this edit, he removed a table by falsely concluding that the awards listed are not anotable. Simply saying the awards in the article are not notable is not grounds for removal. In this edit, he redirected the Headies 2024 article without a justifiable reason. The awards ceremony is a couple of months away and the nominations are already out. I don't know who told him that an award ceremony cannot have a stand-alone page before the event is actually held. It's evident that User:GDX420 has made Nigeria-related articles a target for deletion and has visited my userpage and made edits to a couple of articles I worked extensively on. Evidence of this can be seen here and here. Versace1608Wanna Talk?02:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in all this, but it does seem like this isn't GDX's first trip to AfD (url). This user's edit history seems to indicate that they've previously been warned about using AfD inappropriately. In a vacuum, I'd say that these nominations are just poorly made (assuming that all of the Keep votes there are true), but given this editor's previous history, I'm inclined to suspend my normal assumption of good faith. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to explain this edit and I can understand how the summary content removal may have been difficult to accept giving the work that you have done on this article in good-faith.
I removed the personal life section due to concerns that it may jeopardise the privacy of both C-Real and his mother.
I removed this text because while C-Real may be a public-figure we prefer to show a bit of restraint and only include the material that shows readers why that subject is notable. Additionally, secondary sources are important for verifying information about living persons. However, supposing NYT had published a story about this gentleman purchasing a Hyundai for his mother, many Wikipedians myself included would probably leave this out of the article because, as I explained in my edit summary, the car that his mother drives or how she acquired it simply isn't the kind of content that Wikipedia's readers come here for. Nor is it the sort of content that we would usually feel comfortable publishing. We wouldn't want people thinking we're a celebrity gossip magazine now would we?
I did remove the information unilaterally and without a courtesy note/discussion because that is the protocol that editors are obliged to follow when they encounter WP:BLP issues, especially when there's an WP:NPF involved.
I haven't been involved in any of the other AfDs and don't have a view on the other issues that have been raised, but I did want to draw attention to a comment I left on an AfD that this user started the other day at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuda Bank. In short, several of their recent AfD nominations include source assessment tables that bear almost no ressemblance to the sources actually used in the articles, with some containing entirely non-existent sources. In the Kuda Bank AfD, their source assessment table includes links to https://www.ft.com/content/xxxxx and https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/nigerias-kuda-bank-secures-xx-million-in-latest-funding-round-2024-10-20/ (note the "xx-million" in the url), when the article doesn't contain any FT or Reuters sources and no articles matching those descriptions seem to exist. In the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeoye Aribasoye, which they have now partially fixed after I pointed it out, their source assessment table included sources like "ExampleNews1.com" and "ExampleNews2.com" with made-up details (see this version). Several of their other source assessment tables also bear very little ressemblance to the actual article's sourcing, including those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yadah (musician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Thompson (musician). I had been assuming good faith and was hoping that they would just start creating proper source assessment tables for future AfD nominations, but it seems relevant in the context of the other issues with AfD conduct raised here. MCE89 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source tables are absolute messes and even when the AFDs themselves are legitimate, they cause a mess in the AFDs these are being posted in; I'm looking at the Yadah one where you have a Delete that largely references the source table even though the table has little connection with the sources. GDX420 has responded here very strangely as well, with a long explanation of an edit made to C-Real, which nobody's even said anything about, while also calling the subject "MC Cereal" and "Mr. Cereal." I think a block from AFDs is necessary and perhaps more. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Versace1608 asked me about my edit to C-Real (rapper) in relation to a personal life section about a Valentine's day gift that he bought for his mother that I deleted per WP:BLPPRIVACY. See below.
"It's evident that User:GDX420 has made Nigeria-related articles a target for deletion and has visited my userpage and made edits to a couple of articles I worked extensively on. Evidence of this can be seen here and here."
- Versace
I am happy to address the rest of the points raised but I am conscious that I have been typing flat out for what seems like days and I need a rest. The AfDs have not concluded yet. Therefore, sufficient time has not passed to determine whether my nominations are wrong or right.𝔓420°𝔓Holla11:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're spending so much time making comments about info related to the C-Real (rapper) article. I don't have any issues with the edits you made to said article, and this particular discussion isn't about the C-Real article. It is about you nominating several Nigeria-related articles for deletion without taking into account notability policies like WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR, and WP:NPOL. You never edited any Nigeria-related articles prior to two days ago and it's quite odd that you are now interested in Nigeria. Instead of trying to make improvements to Nigeria-related articles, you have chosen to nominate several articles for deletion. In my opinion, your AFD nominations have been disruptive to say the least. Versace1608Wanna Talk?13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will discuss my nominations in more depth as the AfDs roll on. However, after correcting the source evaluation tables and conducting further research into Yadah (musician) and Victor Thompson (musician) I can't find any reasons to withdraw these two nominations but I have discovered some fantastic music so thank you for bringing these sounds into my orbit.
In the meantime, may I please ask you to clarify which of my edits to C-Real (rapper) you weren't so keen on because it isn't clear per you earlier comment where you linked to WP's page about C-Real (rapper) see below;
I'm just curious and if you think I removed the personal life section erroneously then I'm happy to listed to your reasons for the objection. Which of my edits are you referring to, specifically?𝔓420°𝔓Holla14:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been repeatedly making edits in violation of WP:OR[119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124] 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.
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 [134][135]. This person should be escorted away from these activities. JBL (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) IP, you've made three edits in your entire history of editing Wikipedia, and the first one of the year is this ANI report. Because I don't see this IP or a /24 range interacting with an admin, I'm going to kindly ask if you have edited on a different IP/account before. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their talkpage shows that they have been warned for editwarring multiple times before and was told not to include useless galleries on talkpages but still reverted me on the hijaz article (linked above) and called me a sock 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)06:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gotten pinged by the anon for 45 minutes+. Close to minimize distractions. I'll open another ticket if the problem reoccurs. Adakiko (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor created their account on 26 October 2024, but only started editing from it on 3 Feb 2025. They are making a lot of edits, and a lot of mistakes. They were briefly blocked on 10 February for disruptive editing.
Several editors have pointed out problems with their editing: they have not replied to any posts on their talk page, and have continued making the same mistakes.
It appears, WP:AGF, to be a matter of WP:CIR: repeatedly they:
replace the code for a re-used reference by splitting it into a ref and a closure
muddle links by repeating some or all of the link text outside the link ("Barbadianian" here).
They have been told about all these, and warned for disruptive edits. They also make some constructive edits and some unnecessary edits (removing blank spaces from infobox formatting: some editors would disagree that this is an improvement).
The latest occurrence is this edit which duplicates the word "film" in the lead sentence.
I ask Administrators to block this editor again, as their edits include too many errors which are damaging the encyclopedia. PamD14:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My GF is wearing thin: a very recent edit still changes the re-used ref format, and garbles text around a link to leave the sentence "Frei is in a married with Anne Morriss". And I now see that this editor does actually know where their talk page is, because they blanked it on 10 Feb, shortly before being blocked. PamD14:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like what you did is remove the old data and its supporting citations, and then provided new data without including a citation as to where you got it. What you need to do instead is supply the sources for your edits in the article at the time you change the information. Providing the links on your user talk page does not help our readers at all. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a good place to learn how to do this critical step. Diannaa (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, do not let them edit Atlee filmography (don't want to engage in edit war). Since they add bogus projects like Lion etc. Another IP (is it them?) has edited their own talk page claiming that they are in fact an actress [141] leading to COI (not sure if this is catfishing)?
IMDB doesn't merely list "an" actress named Srilatha, there are at least four of them. At the bare minimum, this violates the username policy. Ravenswing 10:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy blocked the new IP for a month as well. I looked back in the history and it appears to just be those two; if they show up again elsewhere let me know and I'll block the /24. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP 176.90.173.189 (previously 178.241.28.197, as they're from the same location: Geo 1, Geo 2) is a single-purpose vandal, who operates solely to change the Gulf of Mexico to gulf of america.
The first IP, after their only edit was reverted, was warned by two individuals. [142]
Then, as a new IP, they repeated their vandalism twelve hours later, [143] which was reverted, [144] and they were then warned by me (I forgot to sign the warning that time. This has since been corrected). [145]
Finally, a day later, they repeated their vandalism, [146], and was promptly reverted. [147]
It is clear that they aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, and thus need to be barred from the project. Additionally, the page they were vandalizing, Starship flight test 8, should receive some measure of protection. I submitted a request, which was archived before anyone responded. [148]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Apologies for repeat of prior report, which I forgot to sign. But no, the IP has not made one edit: they've made three, two as the current IP and one as a past IP)
The IP 176.90.173.189 (previously 178.241.28.197, as they're from the same location: Geo 1, Geo 2) is a single-purpose vandal, who operates solely to change the Gulf of Mexico to gulf of america.
The first IP, after their only edit was reverted, was warned by two individuals. [141]
Then, as a new IP, they repeated their vandalism twelve hours later, [142] which was reverted, [143] and they were then warned by me (I forgot to sign the warning that time. This has since been corrected). [144]
Finally, a day later, they repeated their vandalism, [145], and was promptly reverted. [146]
It is clear that they aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, and thus need to be barred from the project. Additionally, the page they were vandalizing, Starship flight test 8, should receive some measure of protection. I submitted a request, which was archived before anyone responded. [147]Redacted II (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think any action is required at this time. The edits of this person, three edits over three days, have been adequately handled by reverts. Should it escalate, WP:AIV is the way to go. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection is sorely needed.
(Also, three edits over the span of 1.5 days, not three edits over the span of three days)
This is from two days ago [149] from a different IP.
[150] from 2/21, done by an account with five edits.
