Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360

So, who were the harassers?

How should we address OUTING, going forward?

• WP:AVOIDOUTING

So

Per

So, everyone here is part of the Wikipedia community. What do you think should happen in the future? - jc37 06:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's been following this thread but who hadn't (previously) participated in it, I have to say that it made me uncomfortable that this was being discussed on-wiki at all - especially the connection to an external site which can be easily Googled up. I was thinking of emailing Oversight due to the (in my opinion) veiled link to offwiki outing, but I decided against it - for one reason, as I thought there would be Oversighters already aware of this thread, who would have suppressed anything if they thought it was needed. In my opinion, this should have been dealt with privately (by email to ArbCom) from the beginning. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 07:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That line made me uncomfortable as well. It exists on a spectrum between naming the website (which would have been clear outing) and providing no information about how the info was recently brought to the community's attention (which would have been more alright). Part of what this incident has revealed is that different editors have different views about where to draw the line along that spectrum, with the practical effect that we end up at the intersection point between the editor with the narrowest view of outing and the oversighter with the broadest view of what's oversightable. Given that oversighters are (understandably) cautious about using their tools in borderline cases, it seems that that intersection point is perhaps less protective against outing than community consensus might wish. Sdkb ^talk 08:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The reality is there's

WP:BADSITES and see if it has the stomach to prohibit linking-to (or invoking) outing material? Bon courage (talk

) 09:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that line was an obvious attempt to comply with

WP:OUTING saying that giving hints on where to find doxxed information isn't allowed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}

17:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The outing question is central to my concerns, and comments to just move on (and one failed attempt to close the discussion that got edit conflicted, so I didn't close and commented instead) even if I haven't said as much. People here have to understand this risk, but they just don't seem to give a damn if an editor keeps getting outed. It isn't our best moment, and the several failed closes are proof of that. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, ditto. My vote to close and trout those reopening was not because I don't consider this a serious breach of the community's trust, but because the thread itself seems to be creating damage in ways that are not desirable for an issue that should have been handled privately from the outset. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Just so we understand the risk... We're all going to be outed within the coming years, our semi-anonymity is rather easily outed by machine learning systems (Google for example already knows who you are both on and off wiki unless you're from an obscure market). Outing is inevitable, in the long run none of us will avoid it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I was outed less than a year after I started editing in 2005. Someone posted my home address along with something about visiting hours on my talk page. I admittedly did not try particularly hard to hide my identity. I am not as high-profile as a number of editors, but I think we need to do something to protect editors who take on the hard jobs from harassment and worse. Donald Albury 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  We do a ton to protect all editors... But at the end of the day if we have to be honest: we can not reasonably expect to protect our users from doxing in the long term. At the end of the day the way we write is as unique as a fingerprint and we will all be outed, end of story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The balance between outing and investigating COI issues is always problematic. I haven't looked at the "other" website nor at the name mentioned there, but on the other hand it isn't hard to find (Redacted) (and one wonders how nihonjoe found the draft 3 minutes after creation in the first place[23]). (Redacted)

Note how Nihonjoe also used their admin tools here and here, which may or may not be a COI use of the tools (directly with the person, the Mormon/BYU angle of COI may perhaps be too tenuous to be objectionable here and with other articles).

What the hell Fram. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

He uses his real first name, he uses his wikipedia handle elsewhere to connect his full name to it, he edits multiple pages he is very closely connected with (more than was initially raised), and he uses admin tools on another page which seems likely to be a COI page as well. Why are you still protecting them? They should be stripped of their rights instead.

Fram (talk

) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to get yourself blocked again? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

One practice I find somewhat inexplicable is the one where nobody is allowed to say the name of the

But, do we? Is an arb going to block someone for mentioning Wikipediocracy, knowing that it's been mentioned multiple times on WT:ARBN, for example? Or will an admin block on this page for mentioning Wikipediocracy, even though it's been mentioned loads of times on the usual notice boards? I mean, if people want Wikipediocracy to be unmentionable, actions speak louder than words. But it would presumably have to codify all the other aspects of Wikipediocracy you touch on—intersite participation, for example. Wasn't that recently tried, whereof the committee emerged covered in less than their usual glory? Man, it's a tricky one. ——Serial 13:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The very good reason not to mention it was the same as why OP should have shared less. It's the same reason why arbcom should have so been on top of this that as soon as a concern was raised onwiki, they were able to shut it down with "we're looking, we'll post our findings; meantime, no one mention this on wiki again", or maybe I'm just too stupid, but how about do that preemptively when half of you would have found the offwiki evidence all your own faster than most everyone else and knew full well it was only a matter of time? Instead, you go, after days of being asked, "there's actually nothing new to investigate, so we aren't doing anything; btw COI isn't even a policy, so who cares?" Well, it looks like there was a need to investigate. And if only arbcom had handled this sensibly, we would not have more things coming out publicly that should have all been discovered and discussed privately. In one of the most valuable human undertakings ever, with more than 20 years of experience, we can't find a balance between protecting the encyclopedia and protecting an individual's privacy? It has to be a choice between sweeping everything under the rug and doxxing someone who's contributed more than most? Because, why? Because arbcom has to appear on high and aloof and say as little as possible for whatever reason that's more important than maintaining trust and protecting privacy, I guess. What a let down! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. What the hell Primefac. El_C 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is also my primary concern. As I understand it -- and I don't know if this is true -- but the COI editing was reported privately to arbcom before the off-wiki blog post that exposed it, and the blog post was written in part because arbcom didn't do anything. If this is true, this is a problem.

As to JPxG's point above, I don't think the issue is so much that we aren't allowed to say the name of the site, but that people choose not to name it, in order to not bring attention to it.

I don't think the COI/outing concern Jc brings up is that major of a concern. For me, it's pretty basic that you do not edit the article about your employer, just like you do not edit the article about yourself, just like you do not edit the article about your friends, etc. If you choose to edit COI subjects like that anyway, then you must disclose it. (And it doesn't matter if the edits are good edits or vandalism. Improving an article you have a COI with is still very bad, and that's the reason there are COI rules.) People violate this rule all the time. Outing is essentially required to police COI editing.

Personally, I'd much rather any such outing be done in private, by email arbcom@ or paid@. However, if those reports are being made and sat on, then that's a problem, and a problem that begets off-wiki outing.

I'm still waiting to hear some official word from Arbcom about this. (And I'm hoping the rest of the committee doesn't share the views expressed by PF and TBF in this thread.) Levivich (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Outing is essentially required to police COI editing." - No.

Most ways that an editor can edit Wikipedia are reversible. And what we do to sanction an editor who edits inappropriately is to remove their editing access. Outing is not what we do here. - jc37 20:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich We learned about this the same way the community did, we weren’t contacted in advance. No comment on anything else here (for now). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this.

I'm much more sympathetic to Rhodo's point above that off-wiki blog posts is no way to police COI on Wikipedia. The first port of call for any Wikipedia editor who wanted to raise this should have been to email Arbcom (which I thought was done, based on comments at said off-wiki site).

I'm going to ask an unpopular question: why is the editor who runs that site not blocked on Wikipedia? If I know their username so does everyone else. That person should be emailing their concerns to Arbcom rather than making blog posts about it.

It's tough to resolve a situation where people on both sides are in the wrong. (Though sweeping it under the rug is no solution.) Levivich (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

So many reasons, but I'll start with 1) we don't sanction users for off-wiki activities and 2) silencing one's critics by force is antithetical to everything we do here. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

1) EEML, gamergate would probably like a word. 2) FRAMGATE. ——Serial 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that clear (and as far as I can tell so far unacknowledged) COI editing was going on at least until August 2023[24].

Editing with a COI is not the same as COI editing. Adding someone's book isn't exactly violating

WP:COIU, in that it is an unambiguously uncontroversial edit. Primefac (talk

) 13:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is if you were to be e.g. (Redacted). It's not just "adding someone's book", it's (Redacted). Oh, haven't they disclosed that yet, despite their "apology" and the forced COI declarations they already made? And oh, isn't ArbCom already aware of this after all of this? Oopsies...

Fram (talk

) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You really do not know when to stop. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my above comment, editors with a COI are allowed to make uncontroversial edits to pages with which they have a COI. Discouraged, yes, but not prohibited. In the example above, a book is being added to an author's list of publications, and nothing more, which is why I said that it appeared to be an unambiguously uncontroversial edit per the guideline. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Very few things on Wikipedia are 'prohibited'. But doing things you're not meant to do, repeatedly, tends to draw the disapproval of the community leading in the end to sanctions. Adding a book which is (say), your own, your friend's, or which stands to earn you money from sales, is a straight-up COI problem edit. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Not discouraged... "strongly discouraged." Also not seeing how a

promotional edit could be uncontroversial, unambiguously or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 21:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Editing with a COI is not the same as COI editing"? Earlier in this conversation you said I'd just find something else to complain about. Well, I found it. Levivich (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've said it before but I think

WP:PAID editing). Bon courage (talk

) 15:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that just because you (1) have a COI and (2) edit at the same time ("editing with a COI"), isn't the same thing as (3) violating the COI guideline ("COI editing"). But this instance -- what Joe did -- is violating the COI guideline. Specifically, failing to disclose the COI whiling editing about the thing he had a COI with, and repeatedly denying it before finally admitting and apologizing to it. So this isn't a question of "editing with a COI" v. "COI editing". Nobody should at this point be confused about whether guidelines were followed or not. The answer is not. Now you could argue that it's just a guideline as an arb argues above. But shit, adding a source to a Wikipedia article is a violation of a guideline if you have an undisclosed COI with the source or the Wikipedia article. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

....except if you are a bureacrat, except under watch of this particular iteration of the committee, whose members have no stands other than whatever they happen to find when they hurriedly type WP:[best guess]. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And, in many instances "it's just a guideline" is the mating call of the problem editor (who hasn't heard that about

WP:FRINGE etc?). Editors that keep on refusing to do what the community guides them to do are a problem the community eventually has to deal with. Bon courage (talk

) 15:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And I'd say the COI guideline isn't "poorly understood" on Wikipedia, it's poorly followed. It's amazing to me how many editors, particularly veteran admins, are shrugging at long term undisclosed COI editing here (not directed at you BC, that's a general comment). It's opening my eyes to just how many veterans apparently think editing about your employers/family/friends/whoever is no big deal. Especially, apparently, if you're making good edits. Although since so many thought that "paid advising" shouldn't be prohibited, I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm still surprised.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who is not using Wikipedia to try to make money or improve their career, reputation, etc. Of course that's not true, 99% of editors are probably complying with the guideline just fine, but I naively expect advanced rights holders to be adhere to policies and guidelines more strictly than average, rather than less. I've been here long enough now that I really should have disabused myself of that notion long ago. Alas. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's not clear that "paid editing" includes any COI editing involving a financial relationship with the subject. It literally says at

WP:PAY An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.... JoelleJay (talk

) 11:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence defines a broad category ("having a financial COI") of which "being paid to edit" is a proper subset; this is made clear by the sentence immediately following the two that you quoted: Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI. If I edit the article about my employer tomorrow, I will have a COI, but I will not be a paid editor, unless my employer instructs me to make such an edit in the interim. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I understand the distinction, but the section is titled "paid editing" which suggests "editing pages about your employer" and "being paid to edit by your employer" fall under "financial COI" and that this broader category is synonymous with "paid editing". JoelleJay (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you (maybe?) that the section

WP:PAY is poorly written in that its title is X but its first paragraph is about a larger category, and it doesn't address X specifically until the second paragraph. I have attempted a simple rearrangement of text to remedy this situation. --JBL (talk

) 18:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think that it's clear that we need a better way to report and investigate COIs whose investigation necessarily involves discussing potentially personal information. Sending them to ArbCom is a problem for a variety of reasons - ArbCom is already overworked; it is also intended as a court of last resort, which means that sending something there limits appeal options. Restricting too many things to ArbCom from the moment they arise also risks giving the opinions and interpretations of arbitrators too much weight. I think that all our arbs are good, but the fact that most things go through multiple layers of process before ending up there is an important balance that retains community governance; if too many categories of things are sent straight to arbs then there is a risk that they could become unduly affected by just a few views, even if it's not intentional. And while privacy is important enough to restrict this from being discussed publicly, I don't think that most COI discussions are so private that they need to be restricted straight to ArbCom; for some things, there is a middle ground between "discuss things publicly, outing the person in question to everyone" and "immediately redact them to the absolute highest level." Of course I'm aware that some things would need to be sent straight to ArbCom for legal / OFFICE reasons, but that doesn't cover everything. That said I'm not perfectly happy with any of the other obvious alternatives that come to mind (private courts of admins or CUs or the like aren't something we want to expand either, for a variety of reasons.) Maybe we need a jury system with volunteer jurors who are sworn to secrecy; all you have to do is be a reasonably experienced editor in good standing, agree to that secrecy, never violate it, and put your name forward as available in order to participate. This would probably require some technical support, but it would give us a pool of people who can investigate, discuss, and build consensus on semi-sensitive things without the detrimental effects of sending them straight to the same closed court every time, and would allow for an initial round of investigations before ArbCom. Obvious admins would close discussions, and since the whole point of this is to offer a stop before going to ArbCom, a route of appeal to there would be preserved. --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • In my understanding there is a legal angle here, in that people handling personal information need to have signed an agreement with the WMF. Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I would hope that many discussions fall below the level that require that (as I said, there are clearly some things that require going straight to ArbCom.) But if it really covers all possible personal information, then we could have anyone who wants to be a juror sign that. I feel that cramming basically all serious investigations with the potential for
      WP:OUTING (and anything else that requires secrecy) through the same court with, functionally, nobody to appeal to is not scalable in the long term and is a recipe for disaster. It isn't what ArbCom was originally created for; and when we can avoid it, we should try to avoid situations where the same small group of people is the sole judge, jury, and executioner for entire categories of disputes, with no way for anyone else to even review their decision-making. Having a dedicated class of jurors who can review at least some types of private cases would allow ArbCom to preserve its role as the final court of appeals while ensuring that most cases still have enough eyes on them. --Aquillion (talk
      ) 16:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
      • This issue about COI v OUTing has never been a problem, before. It's a problem that's been conjured up now to excuse not having done the usual reasonable things that are done, no problem, in literally every other case, ever. It's so simple, it boggles the mind. Someone finds out someone's been doing COI editing but involves private evidence, they just say "I found this editor is breaking COI guidelines (private evidence sent to arbcom or this functionary)". The one who received the evidence handles it privately, which is again, so simple. If you determine it's minor, you tell them not to do it again without disclosing COI, if it's major, you seek sanctions. You make public which articles are affected. Everyone who's interested checks the articles for NPOV issues. Done. Of course, that would have required in this case for the party with the evidence and the authority, to actually want to do what's required, rather than seek excuses to protect a bureaucrat. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
        • That last part seems very confused, given that the people with the off-wiki stuff in hand who brought this up at AFD and on this noticeboard are Sagflaps and Kashmiri, who most definitely did not seek excuses to protect a bureaucrat. Nor did they privately take their evidence to the Arbitration Committee as you would have had them do. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
          • Uncle G, yes they did. Sagflaps said the very day this thread was opened that private evidence had been sent to arbcom, no one has challenged that. Regardless, Moneytrees has now said that they took the offwiki evidence to arbcom soon after it was published, which was days before editors started posting to Nihon's talk. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
            • That doesn't help to make what you said any less confused. How is Sagflaps/Kashmiri posting the evidence publicly here and at AFD in line with what you said about sending evidence privately? It seems to be quite counter to it. How is Sagflaps/Kashmiri posting the evidence publicly here and at AFD "the party with the evidence" "seek[ing] excuses to protect a bureaucrat"? I'm fairly sure that that's the direct opposite of what they are seeking. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
              • Uncle G, the party with evidence and authority is arbcom. Since the very beginning, I have only asked one thing, that arbcom take over the case and close public discussion, so COI issues can be dealt with privately and there is no chance of outing happening in public. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I've always been of the opinion that the best preventative medicine for outing relating to WP is to conceal nothing about one's own identity. Unfortunately, the Cult of Anonymity here is so pervasive that it seems universal and with the enhanced powers given to San Francisco to smoke any WP volunteer they want to smoke under the ill-considered Universal Code of Conduct, so-called Outing has become the third rail here. There are two problems in this specific instance: one is that the entire volition for the COI accusation came from off-wiki with a blog post like a bolt from a sky — it wasn't, in this case, a matter of a Wikipedian seeing a problem from within and trying to address the issue internally through prescribed channels, it was a case made by an individual seeking to cast WP in a negative public light. And secondly, it was an accusation of borderline or inappropriate COI editing made against a bureaucrat, not an ordinary administrator. Teh Drahmaz erupt!

Of course, the most Wikipedia thing ever happened: instead of addressing the blog and its accusations head on — oh, dear, that would be outing! — or instead of Arbcom acting proactively and immediately about the matter — why, there's no precedent for that! — a perfectly good article was hauled to the abattoir and people started to either stuff fingers in their ears and hum or start the sanctimonious derby about how nasty, nasty, nasty BADSITE is and how internet anonymity is a fundamental human right. Neither of which are true, but believe what you want to believe.

The fix would have been for the Bureaucrat in question to mea culpa quickly, resign the most advanced hat, and move along with life. But that's not what happened and so we are all wasting our time chattering. Including me. Now, time to write some content. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR //// Carrite (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Anonymity can be important for certain topics – if you're editing about organized crime or dodgy nation states, for example, because it's possible exception might be taken to individuals thought to be bringing the wrong things to light. But often privacy is not necessary and is simply fetishised on Wikipedia (and this has roots in digital communities of all types). This enables a lot of crap/COI content. I don't know how to address this tension between content quality and privacy. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that the best preventative medicine for outing relating to WP is to conceal nothing about one's own identity. That's really easy to say for a white man living in the US, which is part of the privilege that you and I both enjoy. It's not as easy for others. Levivich (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not even necessarily completely safe for people in first-world nations. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, part of the privilege of being an American is having the protection of very strong freedom of speech laws. Even Europeans don't have these protections. It's part of what makes my country exceptional. ;-) Levivich (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Even editors in the US are not necessarily completely safe. It's possible that things like the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions could be brought to bear against an editor who adds something sufficiently detailed. And exposure can risk life-changing consequences even if they're not legal in nature - I recall that during Gamergate (harassment campaign) there were some efforts to direct the campaign against certain editors here, say. They didn't really go anywhere for the most part, but it's a risk. Banned editors have sometimes gone to partisan press outlets and named specific other editors there, too; if those reached the point of discussing real names it could get nasty. --Aquillion (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: Regarding ...having the protection of very strong freedom of speech laws, I'm not sure Julian Assange would agree with you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

True. The other issue is that Wikipedia is incredibly poorly designed from the perspective of anonymity/privacy. Every single action is permanently recorded, and there are no built-in controls to limit or even caution people regarding disclosures. Some information does end up hidden from casual-editors, but it is still stored permanently in a database that nation-state actors could gain access to if they so chose. Furthermore even without that level of concern, such information is often available from mirrors and archive services. It's not limited to just on-wiki stuff either, material from the arbcom mailing list has leaked before. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom time?

• Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Link to ANI thread

Appellant was blocked by @

;carried over latest unblock request--

;carried over unblock discussion

Carried over by -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• No to unblocking Based on what I have just read (as I am new to the issue), and seeing the horrendous (revdel) edit summary, I say no to unblock. That behavior is unacceptable. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I can't view the edit summary, but can you explain what it was about? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Corvette ZR1 I would characterize it as a vulgar personal attack containing what I think is a racial slur. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Decline badgering while awaiting response to unblock doesn't bode well for a change in conduct/temperament, which to me is the bigger issue than the language ability. Also, that e/s while eight years ago is horrendous. We don't need that kind of editor here. Star Mississippi 17:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Replly carried over.

Mate thanks for sending the case to WP:AN. I even saw the first opinions there and sorry for bothering you but I was impressed by someone who called my question to you (about receiving the message or not) a bandering. I'm very sorry, but I thought it was very necessary to ask that question, because in the first instance I was very kind and courteous with its drafting, but also that we know that the previous request was declined for not responding within 1 week, only for this is what I was worried about.. I waited patiently for 4 days but I couldn't stayed without asking 1 simple question so that they don't think I don't give any importance to this, sorry however. I also think that maybe not all admins. are with that same opinion, however I'm here to collaborate. As for that e/s of 2015 who they speak, I think that it belongs to the past now, it even hadn't any serious meaning at the time, it came only at the heat of the moment in an useless debate there. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone there? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am. Now I'll go ping some involved editors. @331dot and Kinu: can you give your opinion on this matter? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel like my opinion is pretty clear from the carried-over comments, but for the record I will state oppose unblock. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Since my opinion has been solicited I oppose unblocking this user. Their attitude has no place here. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• reply carried over below

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I would tell them once again to try to be positive to understand my great desire to work on the wiki, a desire which has even made me forget the bad behavior. sounds like they'll lose track of their behavior out of a love for the project again which isn't a good sign. Is it viable for them to work on another project for six months to show ability to edit productively? Star Mississippi 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, after some investigation, this appears to be part of the reason for the aforementioned block in 2013. I'll leave it to interested editors to use a translation tool. (Is it a poor attempt at humor? I don't know, but it's certainly not something I'd consider constructive if I found it on my talk page.) It's not my intention to pile on to my previous comments, but while this editor may claim to forget about such transgressions, they do suggest that there is a pattern of not being able to work in a collegial environment. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• reply carried over

carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: (Non-administrator comment) Based on what they have done in ANI, I think it is better not to unblock them, what is the guarantee that he may behave tomorrow something strange, if unblocked. The best thing we can do is to advice this guy to work on other projects in wikipedia (Ex: Simple English Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, etc.) for some time (minimum one year). I guess they will get a new experience over there and spent some time. Admins may judge their behavior on other projects. If it is found that he has done an established amount of contributions in other projects, then we can go for unblock. --CSMention269 (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is about Special:Contributions/2600:8805:918B:9B00:BC3E:4AF2:605A:ED66. I did not warn because I don't know very well what I should do. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Already discussed twice at

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

Someone please undo all edits by 173.29.27.108. This guy literally destroyed many articles and many of edits are still alive as current version!

I know, snark snark, but you cannot literally destroy something that is both digital and has an edit history. I randomly checked a half-dozen edits and they don't seem to rise to the level of vandalism being attributed here, and some appear on the surface to be "not bad". Primefac (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

They're currently under a two month block and the edit you're talking about is from December. Nothing to act on here at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

User:24.212.225.184 Personal attacks after informing editor sourced does not means inclusion and informed editor to discussion in talk page - see personal attack -1, -2, -3, and -4 after giving npa warnings - see -5 and -6 and gave 3rr warning - see -7. Cassiopeia talk 04:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't personally attacked you. I merely disagreed about your ridiculous and contradictory decision making re: putting factual information on an individual fighter page but not putting said factual information on the fight card page. That is contradictory and makes no sense. 24.212.225.184 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You said I am ridiculous and absurd (these are attacks) even I informed you to discuss the disagreement in the article talk page and warned/informed you the potential of 3RR and not to write personal attacks messages. Sourced content is not considered inclusion and also the norm of all event page which is about the event itself and the info have already (repeatedly informed) recorded in the subjects' pages. Cassiopeia talk 04:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I said your DECISION regarding that was ridiculous and absurd. Therefore, I was talking about the DECISION that you made, not you personally. Can you see the difference there? There is clearly a difference. And, for the record, I still strongly disagree with your decision and I think it's ridiculous and contradictory. You removed objective and factual information from the fight card page. 24.212.225.184 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

These are three examples of direct personal attacks on the editor, not the decision, from the provided diffs above.

• You are being ridiculous and absurd right now.
• YOU ARE BEING ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS. YOU NEED TO CHECK YOURSELF.
• YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.

Do you understand that behavior like this is not acceptable and a violation of our policies on

civility? ⇒SWATJester

^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I said you should be ashamed of yourself, and that you're absurd, and that you're ridiculous IN REFERENCE TO the contradictory decision that you made, so clearly, I was talking about the decision. 24.212.225.184 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

And that behavior is unacceptable. Let's be very clear -- it's not OK for you to talk to another editor in that manner, regardless if you're referring to them directly (which you unequivocally were) or their decisions. So I'll ask again -- do you understand that your conduct was in violation of our policies or do you not? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I said "Yes" above, but I guess you want me to repeat myself: Yes.

And, again, let's all remember here that this is over the removal of FACTUAL and OBJECTIVE information that I had added to the fight card page, even after adding reliable sources. Having this information on the fight card page improved the overall usefulness and amount of information on that page. So, for the record, I strongly disagree with the decision that was made here, but I haven't made any further attempts to undo the edits on said page. 24.212.225.184 (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Very well then. Based on your response, I'm blocking you from editing indefinitely until you can show that you've read and understood our *required* policies on user conduct. You are clearly not

competency required to be allowed to edit. ⇒SWATJester

^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

May want to downgrade the duration of the block to a couple weeks/months. It's my understanding that we almost never indefinitely block IPs due to them frequently cycling and being reassigned. A bit of a loophole in this case, but I think that's the standard procedure for IP blocks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Ideally it wouldn't take that long, but sure. Adjusted to 1 week. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ask the community to remove or reduce the 1RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([28]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([29]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([30]). It was once again reduced to 1RR on November 29, 2023 ([31]).

After another three months of trouble-free editing, I would ask that the sanction be removed or reduced. Marcelus (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sagflaps: I received 0RR for waging the editing wars. Since then, I have changed my style of working and communicating with other editors. I avoid making reverts, in complicated situations I initiate discussion. Except for this one case on Povilas Plechavičius, I have not had any problems related to reverts. My revert to Povilas Plechavičius was due to my misinterpretation of the revert (I restored the deleted content with the addition of sources, responding to the objections of the user who removed the content under the pretext of a lack of sources), and not out of bad faith. Marcelus (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't given much information on why the 1RR/0RR was given in the first place, and why those concerns are no longer applicable. Sagflaps (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

this comment should follow the one that it answers. Maybe someone will move the question above it. @Marcelus: Do you feel that the way you initiate discussion is collegial and in compliance with Wikipedia policy? Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes Marcelus (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You should withdraw this appeal. Or take it to whoever gave you the sanction.

I actually think this is the wrong sanction, and semi-supported your appeal, but now I have grave concerns about your grasp of policy. I am being vague for your benefit but I know you understand at least in part what I am referring to. I am giving you the opportunity to walk back what you just said. Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby if you think that I did something wrong or that I should be sanctioned somehow for something, please speak up or report this to adequate noticeboard. I don't really know what you mean, and those sort of innuendoes do not serve anyone Marcelus (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't innuendo, it was one last attempt to avoid dramah on a board that is getting more traffic than usual.

So be it.

I have an appointment and also need to consult someone about whether some of what I have to say would be outing. But. There is quite a bit to choose from in the past three months, however pending a fuller answer perhaps you would like to use [32] as an example of collegial discussion of a work in progress? Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the description of the revision is quite comprehensive: I removed unnecessary positions from the bibliography and your meta comments. I would ask you to formulate your objections towards me more comprehensively, i.e. write directly what I am doing wrong according to you. Marcelus (talk)

And you discussed your interference and removal of sources from a work in progress where exactly? We call what you are pointing at an "edit summary". You claim above that you initiate discussions in a collegial manner in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The above is just one example, given when I wasn't really available, but it's a manual revert and will do for a start.

Your past three months may not have included in a 3RR complaint but they by no means constitute "trouble-free editing". If you would like to amend that statement and strike the one about initiating discussion, which is the one that made me guffaw, I am willing to drop this for now.

I do have some time today to write up the longer answer I promised, and without getting into the third-party privacy stuff, I can discuss why I have felt a need to move work on Lithuania offline until it is done. There is however a significant issue from the past three months that involves a third party and about which I have offered pertinent private evidence. Why is this not at AE, by the way? Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's rather clear that I don't start a discussion about every change I make. In this case, a comprehensive edit summary seemed to me to be sufficient. I will not continue this discussion because it looks like

WP:BLUDGEON. Nor will I respond to innuendos or attempts to intimidate. I encourage you to provide actual evidence, instead of telling about them, it can be on AE.Marcelus (talk

) 17:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am either bludgeoning or I am not being forthcoming. Pick one. Btw, you are interrupting the work you asked for.

As for AE, I am actually rather busy and don't plan at this moment to initiate a complaint. I am objecting to this appeal simply because of the jaw-dropping discrepancy between in complicated situations I initiate discussion and your actual editing pattern, as reflected in It's rather clear that I don't start a discussion about every change I make. I agree, btw, you do not by any means start a discussion about every change you make. At all.

My question to you was why this appeal is not at AE. Elinruby (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

All my appeals were here, it's a good place to discuss it. Marcelus (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent an email about the privacy question and offwiki evidence. Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI: I didn't receive any mail. Marcelus (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would I email you about the privacy of a third party? Elinruby (talk)

You didn't specify to whom you send an email, so I just informed everyone that it wasn't e-mail to me Marcelus (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

huh. I am not sure why anyone would think that but ok? Elinruby (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. As someone who offered previously to mentor Mercelus, I am not aware of any problems with his editing (as in, nobody complained to me or tried to draw my attention to anything, nor did I see any issues with my occasional intraction with him). The only issue I see is a slight need for an interaction ban betweeen Marcelus and Elinruby, although so far it does not appear serious, nor do I want to imply that either party is at fault here more than the other (on that note, I'd strongly advice both of them to try to avoid one another and to not comment on, or talk to, the other party).

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The user has 1RR, so at this point granting a
  WP:ROPE 3RR is reasonable. I don't think there's many negative consequences here, since if the user edit wars they will be right back at AN. Sagflaps (talk
  ) 02:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus I have considered you a friend, but come on. You have asked *me* for help with Marcelus' behavior and while I am digging for diffs I'll see if I can find one for than too.

Sagflaps they are always right back at AN, and that is the problem. I was just trying to count the number of times since Ivanvector gave them a final warning on (checks notes) 29 November, which I note he has failed to do mention. On December 3 he accused another editor of "further attempts to obscure the history of Lithuanian collaboration during WWII" over (checks notes) removing vandalism from the lede that was unsupported by the text. This was one of his accusations against Cukrakalnis btw, that the vandalism was unsupported in the text, which Cukrakalnis had not otherwise edited. Currently article has no mention of Ambrazevičius pro-Nazi activities made it seem as though he were responsible for this. This ANI thread never did get closed but went instead to Arbcom and triggered a motion to tighten sourcing requirements. In that ANI he also misleadingly cited the user's final warning at a previous AE for losing his temper as evidence of "improper editing". Yes, he said that there. But there was no finding to this effect and The discussion ended with a "final warning" for Cukrakalnis. It seems that after a short break, C has returned to his practices. certainly makes it seem as though there was. There is a storm and intermittent power and telecommunication outages in my area so I may disappear again, but the privacy concern is resolved and there is more to come, including hounding me on Christmas Day Eve for a source for what I had described as "OR" as in "your OR does not trump their OR". Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#Agency in dissolution He has also created an article on the capital of Lithuania entirely devoted to Polish grievances about the treaty that placed it in Lithuania. It has only one Lithuanian source. Briefly, he has no business editing in Lithuania at all and should have been topic banned long ago. His entire editing style is problematic and I will also be linking to demands that I make changes for which he refused to provide a source. Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#Recent changes made by Elinruby This is not "trouble-free editing" Elinruby (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ELinruby, as a friend, I really think you should try to disengage here and for everyone's benefit, avoid interacting with Marcelus. And as for the diffless comments above, nothing you even mention pertains to edit warring, which is what is being discussed here. I strongly suggest following the motto: "Live and let live". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you look at this dispassionately rather than through the lens of...whatever is clouding your thinking here. As it happens I just addressed that. Cukrakalnis has been driven from the topic area and has felt the need to change his username. (email evidence available) *I* have had to work on revisions offline. You really want to defend deleting a bibliography, Piotrus? He is trying to own the topic which might even be ok if he was doing it justice, but he is not. But sure. Next you'll call me a Lithuanian nationalist. Elinruby (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: if I get another email like the one just now from you I will post it here. Lose the threats bud. Elinruby (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I did warn him. I am going back to diffs now. Have a good night. Elinruby (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You can post that email here. It was not intended as a threat, just a friendly advice, although written quickly as I am dealing with a crying baby (even now); if anything in it was offensive, let me apologize in advance. Since things seem to be escalating in a way that is not likely to benefit anyone, nor Wikipedia, I will not say anything more about this issue (appeal), or you, except note that

WP:BOOMERANG is a thing. Consider me "chased away" from the discussion here, I said what I wanted already (about Marcelus), and I do not want to say anything else about you (I still consider you a wiki friend). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

04:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

PS. Just to avoid any miscommunication, crying baby refers to a real baby crying in real life next to me, not to anyone on Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I will consider this permission to share it if asked. Elinruby (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh and the lack of edit warring? I seem to be the only editor left standing in the topic area and I simply don't, so I am not even sure he should get credit for that. Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose -- with the following I think I will have sufficiently backed up what I said above to demonstrate good cause at a minimum not to grant the appeal. If not, or if there are questions, please do ping me.

===Evidence for statements above===

• Final warning Nov 29: By successful appeal, Marcelus' indefinite 0RR restriction in the WP:ARBEE contentious topic area is reduced to 1RR. However:The editors who participated here and declared themselves involved were quite unanimously opposed to reducing this sanction. Although there is consensus among the uninvolved commenters to accept this appeal, the opposing sentiment was echoed by several uninvolved editors. The previous sanction and appeal were discussed just two months ago, and there was also a rather weak consensus to convert the AE block to 0RR at that time, with a minority preference to impose a six-month moratorium on appeals. Had this appeal been considered a continuation of that very recent one, I believe it would have failed. Nonetheless, our mandate here is to consider the consensus of uninvolved editors who participated in this appeal discussion, and as such the appeal succeeds. However, I advise Marcelus that, per the points above and per WP:RECIDIVISM, further violations are likely to result in more severe sanctions; likely a ban from the topic at minimum. It is your responsibility, and only your responsibility, to abide by the restriction.

-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#Marcelus 0RR appeal (now restored more times than the House of Bourbon)

• AE We could give Cukrakalnis a logged warning that any further inappropriate remarks will lead to sanctions courtesy ping: @Extraordinary Writ and HJ Mitchell:
  • Note that Piotrus pings me into the discussion and mentions a previous occasion where he asked me to help mediate as I mentioned above. And before someone points it out, yes I was on both occasions exasperated and rude to both parties. I now believe that I was wrong to both-sides this. I would not have resolved this case in this way, but the close is not wrong either. Cukrakalnis did fail to many maintain a Spock-like equanimity in the face of personal attacks. I have not gone through the case line by line; it is cited here to show the reason for the warning; it was not editing.
• Arbcom request
• ANI
• Juozas Ambrazevičius edits by Cukrakalnis

===Additionally===

• M insists on using obscure Polish source as reference over more easily verifiable sources in English: Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#Removing text that doesn't verify
• Attempts to discuss
  • Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#personal attack removed
  • Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#Please explain this edit
• M insists there are no differences in the historiography between countries or timeframe, yet there are in fact at least Soviet, Lithuanian nationalist, Israeli, Belarussian, and World War II German narratives. I think there may be a separate Polish narrative as well but I have had trouble sourcing it or verifying Marcelus' source. But for example:
  • short historiography primer
  • See Occupation of the Baltic states#Soviet and Russian historiography for the Soviet version
  • Sorbonne explainer
  • Stanislovas Stasiulis pictured the history of the Holocaust in Lithuania as "three layers and periods." The first, he wrote, involves the relationship between Lithuanians and Jews during the Nazi occupation, and the second followed the Soviet re-occupation. The third period of interest covers the historiography since 1990, he wrote, which has attempted new and open discussions of the defensive (emigré) and ideological (Soviet) reactions to the Holocaust. The Soviet refusal to acknowledge the racialism of the Holocaust helped trigger a defensive cultural response known as double genocide theory, which equated the Holocaust and the Stalinist brutality meted out to Lithuanian by the Soviets. Considered a form of Holocaust trivialization, this paradigm has sometimes been taken as far as portraying Nazi pogroms as retaliation.^[1] from Provisional Government of Lithuania (text and reference added there by me)

References

Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)}}

Oppose, because Marcelus' edits on the main and talk pages do not lend credibility to his appeal. For example, the first version of his recently (Jan 28) created article Vilnius Region under Lithuanian administration (1939-1940), he mentioned a Lithuanian "occupation" of the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. Everyone would correctly recognize that something is definitely wrong if someone writes about the "English occupation of London", "French occupation of Paris" or "Ukrainian occupation of Kyiv" because these things don't make sense, so neither does the "Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius", but Marcelus still wrote those words. This sort of writing is suspicious and problematic. In addition, in a recent discussion Talk:Żeligowski's Mutiny#Żeligowski launched an offensive to occupy all of Lithuania, Marcelus is doing apologetics and denying that the Polish army units that launched an offensive that occupied the Lithuanian capital Vilnius and then aimed to take over the temporary capital Kaunas had any plans to conquer or occupy all of Lithuania. Overall, Marcelus' editing is definitely not as trouble-free as he would like to claim and so I oppose granting him the appeal.--+JMJ+ (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby and +JMJ+, my suggestion: let's focus here on the problem of edit waring, any other objection I suggest you present on AE, I will be happy to answer them there. I see that you together have a big problem with me, so I think it's time to resolve it. And I propose to keep the discussion on the content on the article talk pages.Marcelus (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The way you immediately dismissed the legitimate concerns of other users only shows that your style of communication (which you claim has changed) with other editors leaves a lot to be desired and demonstrates why your 1RR exists. +JMJ+ (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

my Internet is going in and out again and I have to go but I think that the fact that this appeal seriously misrepresents your editing style is relevant to this appeal. You should withdraw it. I tried to talk to Piotrus about this last night. Bottom line he's genuinely too busy to read this entire thread let alone monitor your behaviour. I still think you should be topic banned and will applaud if that ever happens, but all I am asking right here is that your bullying behavior not be further empowered. It is revealing that the discussion immediately went to boomerangs and interaction bans. The problem here is that you feel entitled to hostilely police other editors' work based on beliefs you refuse to substantiate. Or cannot, as above. Elinruby (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby and +JMJ+: Ok, I listened to you. I don't agree with your assessment of me, of course, but it saddens me that you see me this way. However, I don't want to bludgeon this discussion into things unrelated to 1RR, that were also largely discussed elsewhere (here for example). I encourage you to create a submission in AE. And now I'm waiting for feedback from other editors and eventual request for comment from them.Marcelus (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

blink. I could swear you just answered my point that you misrepresented your editing style here in this appeal by pointing to an ANI thread where you misrepresented the findings of an AE. And which I quoted extensively above. In which you steadfastly refuse to provide a source. Have you read the other posts in this thread? Please Marcelus, nobody has time for this right now. Are you really trying to be your own Arbcom case? Elinruby (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, as I said, I'm waiting for the contributions of other editors. I am not comfortable talking to someone as hostile as you are towards me. Marcelus (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even slightly hostile. I keep offering you a way out of this hole you've dug. But there is no question that you have made misleading statements. I had the receipts and since you demanded I show evidence I did so. I even warned you first.

You initiated this and can possibly still withdraw, due to all the other drama going on. I am actually rather sad about the fact that you won't. Elinruby (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby if you do all this only out of concern for me, then you can stop. I really don't need it. Let's wait for the opinions of others. Marcelus (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not enjoying this conversation either, Marcelus, but that's not what I said.

I said that you have made misleading statements here and at ANI, and you should withdraw this appeal if you are not going to address that.

Other features of your editing have also been mentioned, such as unsubstantiated personal attacks, but you should address the above examples of misleading statements because they put in question what you say about facts and sources and why you would revert something in the first place Elinruby (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: per my reply to your message on my talk page, I really think you need to click the links here and re-examine what you were opining on without fully investigating. Lest this seem to others like beating a dead horse, you just did the very same thing on my talk page about a recently-closed ANI thread that you completely misunderstood. I will refrain from comment on how much confidence this gives me in whether it is in fact Rotary Engine who isn't getting it. Please don't explain that dispute to me, or I will break out my anti-administrivia photon torpedoes. But that comment is why you are getting more than a simple wordless ping here.

Elinruby (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been a backlog in

Russell Russellmorden (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done: User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Over at the Teleperformance article user Coconutshrimp has been constantly trying to remove well-source additions to the Controversies section. Some admin oversight would be good to try and get a more neutral view on the matter. Defending a corporation blindly surely isn't healthy for Wikipedia in my view. Perhaps these additions can be improved upon but not removed entirely given their relevance to the topic as well as being supported by neutral sources. Gnkgr (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)