Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi Andrew, thanks for the note. SamckBot is run on a batch basis so most of this stuff would be difficult, however there is a COIbot that looks for autobiographical articles.

It would however be possible to tag for lack of inline citations, and maybe lack of references. Rich Farmbrough, 09:24 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Hello, Andrewjlockley. You have new messages at Awickert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Andrewjlockley. You have new messages at Oren0's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

To make a reference, insert doi in here^[1]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrewjlockley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've already filed a manual block removal request. As has been pointed out by others (replying to @CaptainEek block announcement) this is an egregious misuse of the no-notice indeff sanction and a grossly inappropriate interpretation of WP:HARRASSMENT. The email I sent to the organisation funding @EMsmile's PR-style edits to Wikipedia didn't even mention her name or account name (Redacted). It simply asked them to stop paying to twist Wikipedia for their own PR efforts - which was unarguably the case, based on the declared association with @EMsmile and her history of inappropriate and promotional editing (discussed ad nauseum, in the same thread and on the article talk page). I simply asked an organisation - one within my field of deep, long-standing expertise - to behave itself wrt Wikipedia. To describe this as personal harassment, directed at an unknown, paid Wikipedia freelancer is a shocking misinterpretation of the truth. NB As I recall, I sent this letter before any direct dealings with @EMsmile, or even knowing her ID/association with her client. Applied generally, the implied principle would lead to a situation where nobody with a WP account can ever criticize an external organization for misusing Wikipedia. Advocating for such a situation is utterly absurd; criticizing an organisation is emphatically not harassing an (unknown) individual who is paid to do the bidding of that organization. It is simply incomprehensible that taking such an action would lead to a no-warning, permanent site ban. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I called this out by means of letter to the employer [1]. We don't do that and it absolutely is harassment, If someone is editing in an unacceptable manner, we block them, we don't contact their employer.

You are under an indefinite block currently, not a "permanent site ban" but if you can't or won't acknowledge that what you did was out of line and utterly unacceptable, you might as well be banned because it is highly unlikely any admin will unblock you.

I think it's a real shame for an editor who has been around to go out like this, but if you did not know this wasn't acceptable, you should have. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm missing something here. Is there some kind of Wikipedia geoengineering mailing list? What group are you referring to in your email? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put a link into this earlier but it's vanished for some reason (redacted, again)

If you can't see the text at the link, let me know and I will paste it in full

It's a research (solar geoengineering) mailing list. I think my post had 47 online views when I checked, but I can't see the people who read it in their inbox. Frank, the guy that it was addressed to, is the founder of the organisation in question. He is quite well known in our field for launching the non-use agreement - which is what the contested edits were all about

You can see I didn't mention anybody specifically and at that point I don't think I knew who the person I got blocked for harassing actually was. So, I'm seemingly being nuked for harassing someone I didn't even know existed. There could have been one person or 10 people doing this editing for Frank's org, I had no idea. I'd heard from a colleague that it was going on and that's why I wrote the letter. As far as I recall, all my dealings with the person I'm supposed to have been harassing came after the email was sent. So if that's harassment it's also time travelling harassment

To avoid any suggestion that I've subsequently been harassing this individual user, I have recused myself from voting on any possible sanction. I've only clarifying my concerns - to say that I don't care about any claims of outing me and I don't really care that she's a paid Wikipedia in residence (if that's what she is) as long as she's doing the job in a way that isn't obviously biased . So the idea that I've got some kind of beef with this person personally - or that I'm trying to hound her out of a job - is just absurd . She just needs to check her behavior and stop doing paid PR with a public resource that we all work on.

As a general point I think it's really chilling if we have a situation where we can't even discuss Wikipedia offline if we have a Wikipedia account. I don't work paid for the organisation and I don't see why I should be accountable externally for my speech- any more than I should be accountable for what I say about YouTube or Twitter. If an organisation was paying somebody to upload unacceptable content on Twitter or YouTube I would call that organization out too.

Another user put this far better than I ever could when he said in reply to your block "To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts." Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox Did you read the letter, linked below? I've got no intention of going against policy - but, as you can see from the discussion under my block notice on the ANI page, there was considerable disagreement among users about whether I had done anything wrong - so the idea that it is seen as "absolutely" being harassment is certainly not universally held - implying that harassment policy is either misapplied or vague at this point. In fact, I'm personally entirely unclear as to why specifically you think it's harassment - and that's not me being deliberately obtuse, I just don't understand what makes it harassment. As I've explained clearly below, I was not even aware of this specific person's involvement at the time I called out the organisation for its unacceptable paid-PR editing practices. Their freelancer's username or real name were not linked or mentioned in my letter. Your response implies that I grassed someone up to there to their employer because I didn't like them, or didn't like what they had done - but this is emphatically not the case. This freelancer has been hired by the org in question to mess up Wikipedia with PR spam - potentially as part of a portfolio of responsibilities. I went to speak to the organisation responsible for the decision, who are very much in my existing academic orbit. The idea that this constitutes harassing someone who has been hired to do that job is a bit of a stretch, to put in mildly. And, as I recall, I didn't actually know if it was was one person, 10 people, or nobody at all at that point (as I made clear in the letter). Please carefully read the letter below if you need more context, because I think this is all based on a massive misunderstanding of what actually happened. If your response to this is genuinely that no Wikipedia user can ever speak to any organization about the org's conduct on Wikipedia, without being nuked for harassing anybody who might be involved in that conduct, then that is tantamount to a gagging order that prevents anybody with a Wikipedia account ever discussing Wikipedia with any other organization or company. If you really genuinely believe that that isn't an egregious overreach then this policy needs to be agreed at very high level - because I'm sure that 99% of Wikipedia account holders have no idea that they are expected never to speak of the organization to any company/organisation that might be represented by any kind of freelancer or staff editor. I have certainly never signed up to any kind of gagging order, with that breath of scope. In fact, your position (if maintained) would seem to be that I am also potentially committing a civil or criminal offence if I ever discuss an organizations action on Wikipedia in this way - because such personal harassment of staff at work is likely to constitute a civil or criminal offence in many jurisdictions. That position, I can confidently say, I reject emphatically. I have never agreed that discussing Wikipedia outside the website constitutes criminal or civil personal harassment, and I absolutely would not sign any document or agree to any terms which meant that mentioning in the organisation in this way did constitute civil or criminal harassment. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super inclined to go through this wall of text and respond point-by-point, but I am not in any way making a legal argument. The community here has made it clear, repeatedly, that they consider contacting an editor's employer and similar acts to be harassment. This is not how Wikipedia handles these issues and never has been. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between contacting an editors employer as a method to intimidate them and contacting an organisation which is paying paying for edits to be made and asking that they try to follow the guidelines more closely. I agree that it was not a good idea and that it would have been better dealt with through the normal channels, but reading the harassment policy and the letter sent, I don't personally see how the letter linked to constitutes harassment. The letter is clearly focused on maintaining neutrality rather than attacking any particular editor. That said, I fully understand why contacting editors employers is seen as such a red line by the community and Andrew needs to understand the problem with taking disputes off-wiki. Hopefully all that is needed is for Andrew to realise that while they thought it was the right course of action, they now understand why some consider it harassment and promise not to do it again. SmartSE (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the link itself vanished because it got oversighted, and then oversighted again when you reposted it, because it contains the emails of private persons. At this point, I think I'm going to send this issue onto the Arbitration Committee, (and will recuse from the issue), as the Committee is best equipped to handle these kinds of issues. Regarding your comment to Beeblebrox, I'll also remind you that we have a strong no legal threats policy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The link I supplied is on the open web and nothing private has been posted. I don't see how anyone can appraise the situation without reading the email (in which I'm supposed to have harassed an unnamed person). For clarity, I didn't make any legal threats. It appears that an implied legal threat has been made against me, because I've been told that what I've done is harassment of a person (who was neither known nor named) - and this may constitute a criminal or civil offence in some jurisdictions. If I agree that writing to an employer who is funding non-neutral Wikipedia edits constitutes WP:HARASSMENT of the staff/freelancer making those edits, I may be admitting the commission of a criminal offence or leaving myself vulnerable to a claim for civil damages. While I now understand that Wikipedia's view of best practice is to deal with such matters internally to Wikipedia in future (although this view is plainly contested on the ANI), I do not accept that asking an external organization - one within my own academic field - to obey Wikipedia's rules constitutes harassment of any individual person on Wikipedia (particularly if that person is not named by their real name or their Wikipedia ID). As such, sanctions for WP:HARASSMENT should never have been applied or even implied. It is also unclear to me why asking an organisation to obey the rules is a breach of Wikipedia policies at all. It is no different from asking somebody not to drop litter or to turn down a noisy radio.

  Here's the body text. For brevity I didn't paste the policies summary.

  Wikipedia neutrality, NUA

  (addressed to founder)

  I'm writing in a private capacity (cc the group for transparency) regarding the SRM article on Wikipedia. This is, as you're likely aware, a globally prominent resource for informing the SRM debate.

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_modification

  For background: I've been editor on Wikipedia for 15 to 20 years, and was highly active in setting up the original pages around geoengineering. Wikipedia is a valuable public resource, and maintaining its integrity is critical for fostering informed, unbiased discussions about contentious issues like SRM.

  I'm writing to you today because this article appears to have been heavily and inexpertly edited, raising the prominence of the SRM non-use agreement (NUA) in an inappropriate and unbalanced fashion. These edits - and the process leading to their insertion - may violate various Wikipedia policies, which I have summarised (bottom) for your convenience. I have not checked the origin of these problematic edits, but whoever made them may conceivably have had some association with the NUA.

  In response to this situation, I have today made the number of improvements to the SRM article. Among other changes, this includes removing inappropriate material from the lead, and more generally removing undue weight given to the NUA. I understand that others in our field have previously done this very same task - and yet the material has been reinserted into the article. This kind of edit war behavior - especially when in support of policy-violating edits - is a significant breach of editing protocols.

  Should you others wish to raise the profile of the organization and its campaign on Wikipedia, an appropriate way of doing this may be to create a new page describing the organisation and its campaign, in a neutral fashion. Whether you or your supporters make a new page, or edit an existing one, please ensure that both the edits and processes follow policy. Wikipedia is not the place for partisan or promotional editing.

  Thank you for your attention to this matter. Policy summaries continue below. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the editor in question was pseudonymous I wouldn't be commenting here because I wouldn't have anything new to add. However, since Andrew uses his real name and his real-world colleagues are aware of this situation, I think it is urgent that Andrew not have "sending harassing letter to another contributor's employer" attached to his name. This label has the potential to cause significant and lasting damage to a living person, and we can all see that he might actually be innocent (I for one think he is). I understand and appreciate @CaptainEek's haste, but now that you know a bit more about the situation, would you consider unblocking and/or adding a new entry to the block log with a more nuanced explanation? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Having read the email, I agree that the underlying conduct was not quite as severe as I first imagined, and so have removed the word "harassing" from the block log. But Andrew's ANI message is exactly why he got blocked. Let's examine the issues.

  • I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer So he understood that this was EMsmile's employer, and that by contacting them, he could get her in trouble, and did it anyway. Boy, that sure seems like harassment (as defined by Wikipedia's internal policies) to me, even if he didn't put her name in the email, and merely alluded to a potential contributor. He wrote that email to have a chilling effect.
  • 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. An unrepentant admission that he didn't care about the rules or the process, and had sent the email as a wildcat action. Might I also point out that Andrew seems to have a strong point of view in this topic area, and seems to be pushing his POV, so he's not exactly going at this with clean hands.

  Saying those things at ANI was wrong, and several folks have agreed with me. If Andrew won't admit that he shouldn't have acted the way he did, then...he hasn't gotten the message. Now, I understand this is a complicated situation, so as I already said, I have sent this on to the Arbitration Committee, so that they can decide whether this is really a private evidence block or not. Insofar as Andrew has pasted a part of the email, he's left some off, and also the email addresses themselves (which may be relevant) can't be revealed. Let's give the Committee a chance to review this and see what they think. If they send it back, I'll send myself to WP:AARV and we can get some broader input. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to make sure anyone reviewing this case has the whole picture: the second post that AJL left on my talk page on 15 January is here. He said there: "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." This post came only 8 hours after his first page on my talk page so it was a very fast, very aggressive (und very unnecessary) escalation of a disagreement about content at the SRM article (SRM is a controversial topic). It certainly felt like a threat and personal attack towards me (whether it was a threat in the Wikipedia sense, and whether a block is justified, I can't judge). EMsmile (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EMsmile this isn't a personal attack. I don't think any org should be paying to breach WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE, regardless of who is editing. It's certainly not personal to agitate for this internally or externally. The issue I have is that you have not - and still seemingly do not - accept the problem exists with your situation and/or edits. That's why I asked for an ANI, because you just weren't engaging with the repeated and specific criticism from me and others. Check out how many other people have criticised you on the talk page or ANI before criticising me for the way I've raised this. I don't care if you're a paid Wikipedian in residence, provided you aren't doing WP:NOTPR. I don't care if others decide to indeff you, topic ban you, or trout you - as long as you stop. I've not agitated for any specific sanction, and I've explicitly distanced myself from your WP:OUTING warning (as you're likely aware). And, FWIW, I run loads of my own NPOV services in the SRM/CDR space, so an accusation of bias against me is baseless. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey @CaptainEek you've had the email (twice). Do you want me to paste the policy summaries too? I was instablocked by you for WP:HARASSMENT; you seemingly now withdraw that claim, so the block should go and not just the accusation. Then, there's no need for any arbitration. An instant indeff is totally inappropriate for any other claimed issue here.

  And no, you can't get someone into trouble with their employer for doing their literal job. Taking my "trouble" statement as anything else beyond a clarification of my purpose is a bizarre misinterpretation, now you have the background.

  As I've explained on numerous occasions, the issue here is that the client (well known to me) was prima facie paying for non neutral edits. I've been completely clear about this throughout, so no other interpretation is justified. I maintain that asking an org (one you know well) to behave itself online is unacceptable, and I'd like to know what policy is breached by such a request. It's not wildcat unless you claim some kind of agency on behalf of Wikipedia, which I expressly did not.

  In case any clarification is needed, my reference to "outing" was because @EMsmile was getting beef for WP:OUTING (and indeed got a formal warning). I thought that was inappropriate - and it's entirely up to me whether I hold or express that opinion. Making my non-protestation of her actions to be a defiance towards policy is - at the most charitable possible interpretation - a misreading. I've never asked for any warning or sanction for her on these grounds, and I've taken no role in its application whatsoever. Let your process roll forward, but it's not at my behest. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed the word "harassing" because you and Clayoquot raised a fuss about that not being your intent. But contacting someone's employer remains a red line regardless. You don't seem to agree or understand. If you can express that you understand how to properly report a COI going forward, I won't oppose an unblock. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi AJL: I didn't really want to get into this again but just for the record: You stated that "I don't think any org should be paying to breach WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE, regardless of who is editing". Of course not but this did not apply here because the edits that I have been doing on the solar radiation modification article in the last 7 months or so made the article more balanced not less balanced (anyone can compare the old version to the current version and see for themselves). And this is my belief not because I have a client (as disclosed on my profile page) and "paymaster" but based on my professional assessment of the literature. I use my own brain and professional judgement as well as experience in reading academic literature. (I've added many non-paid volunteer hours to this in the meantime as well.)

  The version of the SRM article (which you had first created in 2008) that I found in about May last year was clearly written by those who are perhaps SRM researchers and who in any case feel rather optimistic about SRM research. There is nothing per se wrong with that but it wasn't balanced. What was largely missing from the article was a more nuanced description of all the different aspects around SRM, including information about critical debates around SRM. Now, how much of that content is WP:DUE and how much isn't, is best decided amongst a group of people (not just you and me!) on the talk page of the SRM article, not through an ANI and not by trying to silence and bully someone into "behaving themselves online" (your own words in your post above).

  For example, one has to wonder why you so aggressively pushed back on mentioning of the non-user agreement, e.g. you removed most of the text about it in this edit, and removing a mention of the number of academics and orgs who had signed it (this has in the meantime been put back in). The cause for that could be a COI or at least a "strong belief" at your end, too.

  I fear that when you do Wikipedia editing in future you might employ the same tactics again on someone else. The decisions on what is DUE and what is POV are not always 100% clear cut (this is not an exact science!) but require a friendly and constructive discussion on the article's talk page. Also, we should always assume WP:GF for everyone even if they are a declared WP:PAID editor. EMsmile (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EMsmile You engaging with Andrew in this thread is not improving this situation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've explained already @EMsmile, I'm not engaging with you. I'll let the ANI be the judge of your edits/conduct (of course, nobody is questioning ALL your edits). Suffice to say that: a) I'm aware of no policy on beliefs, strong or otherwise b) for clarity, the "behave" comment wasn't directed at you personally. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EMsmile had already declared a WP:COI, and my key issue was re WP:NPOV, WP:NOTPR & WP:UNDUE - therefore the ANI seemed to be the right approach. Do you think that's not a correct appraisal of relevant policy, or that the ANI was not an inappropriate channel? If it was not the appropriate action, pls detail what should have been done.

  I note that another WP committee has returned the matter to ANI, so it seems appropriate to others. Notably, the matter has also sparked much debate - indicating diverse views.

  Can you pls also confirm policy re asking external orgs to respect WP policy eg WP:NPOV etc.? In a context where academics are ordinarily in contact, this seems an entirely reasonable course of action - as multiple users have stated in this debate (see esp @Thisredrock discussing Heritage Foundation). If being a WP editor means you can't talk externally about the need to adhere to WP policy, that probably should be publicised very widely; I'd expect a diversity of views on this, to put it very mildly. If it ' Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think discussing Wikipedia problems externally isn't the issue. My (amateur) read of the situation is that referring to it as "I sent a letter to their employer" reads as intimidating. That is, it could have a dramatically chilling effect, similar to WP:NLT. Nobody expects User:RandomEditor123 to actually file a court case because someone removed their unsourced opinion from an article, but the legal threat can still deter editors who don't want to risk it. So too with contacting employers, perhaps even moreso.

  My feel is that if you had simply said, "I sent a letter to the organization asking them to stop," it would at worst have been frowned upon. It was linking it to EMS that made it seem like harassment, even if the timeline didn't work out that way. Can you see how, "I sent a letter to your boss about your actions" can come off as intimidating, even if you didn't realize I was the employee at the time? EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the wording was potentially sub optimal - but I didn't think for one second that this would result in an indeff, so I wasn't taking any unusual degree of care (remember, I'm not the one under suspicion, here). The org in question was seemingly paying for non neutral edits. They're the source of the problem, and @EMsmile was just how they were achieving this. The context makes that obvious, and the letter text (posted above) doubly so. Despite the obvious misunderstanding here, and despite the WP:HARASSMENT allegation having been withdrawn some time ago, I'm still in @CaptainEek's wiki jail. If I didn't breach harassment policy, what specific policy have I been instablocked for breaching? I literally don't know. It's Kafkaesque. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at the Village Pump regarding the "red line" that some admins thought exists around contacting employers. It's been five days (permalink) and I'm not seeing an embrace of absolutist thinking on this issue. Having said that, EducatedRedneck's comment above speaks my mind. Andrew if you could take a softer approach to conflict, that could prevent future misunderstandings. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for starting the discussion @Clayoquot. Doubtless I'm not going to win any diplomacy awards, and I agree such clarification would have been helpful. But why am I still on block, if there's a) no consensus on prohibition and b) my WP:HARASSMENT charge has also been withdrawn? Paging @CaptainEek Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you'd have an easier time convincing them to unilaterally lift the block if you gave an indication that you saw the gravity of the situation. Describing it as the wording was potentially sub optimal sounds like you still don't get why it raised major red flags for people, even though they misunderstood the timeline. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully suggest that you check out the village pump discussion linked above . There is no consensus I've done anything wrong. the harassment allegation has been withdrawn already, just not the punishment. I have requested clarity on which policy I've breached and neither has there been any specific allegation nor has there been even a link to a policy which I'm supposed to have breached. The situation closely resembles that of the plot for the penal colony by Franz Kafka Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may note I commented in that discussion already, and I have a different read of the general mood of it. Since my advice appears unhelpful to you, I'll refrain from posting further. My apologies if I've added to any aggravation with my ham-handed attempts to help. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Diff/1273329771/1273548728 As promised, I have sent this to AARV. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that Andrewjlockley take a week off—try not to look at any pages here and definitely do not comment. After that, think about the following scenario: editor A enthusiastically edits a certain topic; editor B notices; after some back-and-forth, editor B emails what they believe to be A's employer. Would that be a sustainable arrangement between editors? If I don't like what you're doing, I will do some research and see if there is someone I can contact with a complaint. The policy is WP:HARASS. I agree that Wikipedia's procedures are stupid—we welcome throw-away IPs and accounts and assume that someone from the infinite supply of good editors will spend three hours combating each of the PR people and their socks. However, regardless of how that's going to work in the long term, the community cannot allow contributors to use off-wiki means to contact or counter other editors. Unsolicited contact is creepy and very unwelcome. After a week, Andrewjlockley can consider a response and, if wanted, post an unblock request. But please think for a week first. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This vignette is quite simply a complete misrepresentation of the situation. Every single detail is wrong.

As I have repeatedly stated, this is nothing to do with telling tales to somebody's employer; it is the client here who is the guiding hand. They have been setting the policy and paying for it to be executed.

This client is someone in my professional circle - and speaking to people in your professional circle about professional matters is emphatically not creepy. Wikipedia is not Fight Club, and I have made no commitment not to talk about it.

Furthermore, the back and forth described above was after the client contact, not before it. I didn't even know who the editor was - or even whether they were a single person. So not only is the background misrepresented above, the chain of events is also misrepresented.

The allegation of WP:HARASSMENT was withdrawn by @CaptainEek, so there is simply no allegation to which I can reply at present. There is a punishment, but no alleged crime. This is literally the plot of The Penal Colony. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response but a critical part of my message was to take a week off first. The idea of that is to get over the bitterness of being blocked when you were doing extra work in order to help Wikipedia resist promotional edits. When more reflective, it might be apparent that while your action (in your view) was justly done to assist the encyclopedia, anyone could use that same claim in any dispute. The community is not willing to allow contributors to take real-life action because there would be an extremely chilling effect if that became a norm. The no legal threats policy is similar—if someone in a dispute says that they know a good lawyer, they get indefinitely blocked until they unequivocally and convincingly withdraw any suggestion of pursuing legal action. Of course people are welcome to take legal action, but they can't be part of the editing community at the same time. The only allegation is that you contacted the employer of an editor. The quality or other characteristics of that editor are not relevant. It is the real-life contact that is the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear: I'm not going to take a week off, if that means leave entirely misleading or counter-factual allegations sitting on my Talk Page without a response.

Once again, I find it necessary to correct an implicit and misleading allegation. AFAIK I raised this matter with the organisation funding the malicious edits BEFORE I was even aware of the hired editor's details (their username may have displayed on my screen, but I made no attempt to record, recall, or convey it, nor to investigate its significance). There cannot therefore be a threat of external action - legal or otherwise - in this case. A threat, by definition, has to precede the action that it threatens.

Again this leaves us in a situation where the only accusation that can be levelled is that I broke the first rule of Fight Club. This - as you may recall - does not exist on Wikipedia. Anyone - regardless of whether they are an editor on Wikipedia or not - is free to implore organisations (particularly ones in their own academic orbit) to respect the integrity and processes of Wikipedia - and that's all I've done.

It's important to remember the wider context here, and to recognize the (withdrawn) allegation against me as being the DARVO that it is. The editor in question has already been reprimanded, and has had limitations agreed AFAIK (although, as I'm taking a week off, I haven't been keeping up with the latest elements of that debate). I raised that matter through the proper channels here and left others to deal with it. Trying to turn this around and make it about me is "nuts" - to quote one Wikipedian's take on the matter. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like Johnunq's idea of a taking a week off. When you come back I have a quick question: What was the date and UTC time of your message to the solar geoengineering mailing list? This might help people put it in context. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The email to the commissioning org was sent 15 Jan 2025, 10:34 UTC. I have previously linked it as evidence, but the link has been taken down on multiple occasions. This suppression of factual evidence has grossly distorted people's perceptions of the situation, and harmed my ability to get any kind of fair treatment. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've said above "Doubtless I'm not going to win any diplomacy awards". My honest, well-meaning suggestion to you to achieve the desired unblock would be: show some remorse, perhaps even an apology, and make a commitment on how you would handle something like this better in future. This whole situation has been very unpleasant for both of us and I wish it hadn't happened. We are all just humans, we all make mistakes, also on Wikipedia. I am the first to admit that I have made various mistakes on Wikipedia during the course of 10 years of editing Wikipedia. I always try to correct them when they are pointed out to me, understand exactly what went wrong and do better next time! - I wish you all the best for the future. (as an aside, I find this essay on WP:CRY rather relevant here; it's only an essay, not a policy, but it does provide food for thought). EMsmile (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EMsmile, I was going to say I also wish it hadn't happened. Then I got to your last sentence which I found provocative and self-serving. If you really want to put this behind you, don't provoke Andrew further and don't suggest that your COI editing wasn't bad. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew. It's normal in Wikipedia conflicts for everyone involved to be scrutinized. If you can help us with the scrutiny that will actually make things go faster. I think it would be helpful if you could explain as plainly as possible how you got to the point of sending the email on the 15th. You mentioned for instance, that others in our field have previously done this very same task. How did you know about that? And you addressed the message to a particular person referred to above as "Founder". How did you know this was the name to include? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to help with the scrutiny before; my evidence link was repeatedly deleted.

People known to me personally were aware of the malicious edits problem, and it was brought directly to my personal attention. (I'm not going to provide any further details on the background - as someone will doubtless make out I'm breaching WP:OUTING, or some other policy.)

I cleaned up the most obvious WP:NOTPR spam - only to find out later that I wasn't the first to do this; it had already been edit-warred back in at least once before. This seemed like a pattern that was going to continue, as long as the cash was flowing in. I know the org in question pretty well, and their founder is already in my email address book. I'm reasonably well known in the field, as I run around a dozen neutral information services. Therefore, I have some degree of credibility - and that's why I decided to send the open letter. The logic was that (even if the founder was minded to ignore me personally) the public criticism for their clumsily subversive behaviour would make it a reputational risk to continue. As I explained in the email: I don't actually care if they pay for edits, even if it raises their profile - provided it doesn't ruin perfectly decent articles with cack-handed spam. Apparently, they're not actually allowed to edit their own info, so the restraint I requested was actually weaker than current policy - which gives you an idea of just how mild my request was. To reinforce my previous statements, I named nobody and called for no firing. I criticised only the org, not their hired editor(s). There was, as a matter of fact, absolutely nothing that could be construed as [WP:HARASSMENT]] of any identifiable editor - which was why the accusation was later withdrawn (although strangely not the associated punishment). Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the word "harassing" because I'm not sure your intent was to harass, and you and Clayoquot raised a fuss about how you could get sued for it. I think that belief was an overreaction but it was easy enough for me to remove. But your actions writ large still violated the policy which is linked to via WP:HARASSMENT. Look, you're not blocked forever. You're only blocked until you prove to us that you understand the rules and won't be a problem going forward. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps let me echo what CaptainEek said in a slightly different wording. I think you did do something that went against the norms of the Wikipedia community, and for historical reasons these norms are categorized under the Harassment policy. So even though you didn't harass anyone you did do something that happens to fall under the Harassment policy. I'll explain further when I have more time later today. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, it's claimed:

m

b Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat - I'm not an admin so if one of the admins watching this page says I've misunderstood our policies, you should trust that they know this stuff better than I do. Having said that, after watching y'all talk past each other for two weeks I figure we have nothing to lose if I try to clear things up.

Based on what you've said and the timestamps in page histories, I can sort events into roughly three phases. Please correct me if I've gotten something major out of order here.

• Phase 1: Your colleagues told you about NUA promotion in Solar radiation modification. You looked at the article and agreed that it contained NUA promotion. You came to the conclusion, based on your prior knowledge of who is the biggest NUA advocate, that an individual we've been calling "Founder" might have been behind the promotion. On January 15 between 9:11 and 9:36 UTC you made a series of edits to Solar radiation management. Nobody questioned your edits at this time.

• Phase 2: At 10:34 UTC you sent an email to the solar geoengineering mailing list, addressed to "Founder". Phase 2 was your attempt to solve the problem of NUA promotion by going through a real-world, off-wiki channel.

• Phase 3: At 10:54 UTC you brought up the issue of NUA promotion at Talk:Solar radiation modification. EMsmile responded. This was the first time in your Wikipedia careers that the two of you interacted.[2] You later brought up the issue at EMsmiles' talk page and at AN/I. Phase 3 was your attempt to solve the problem of NUA promotion using on-wiki dispute resolution process.

I understand that in Phase 2 you were trying to help Wikipedia by getting promotion turned off at the source. In the strange norms of the Wikipedia community, however, editors are supposed to skip Phase 2 and go straight to Phase 3. Nobody tells you this; it's one of the gajillions of rules here that we learn about when we break them.

If editors are involved in a problem on Wikipedia, they are supposed to rely on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes and not take disputes off-wiki. Some of the reasons for this are 1) it's difficult for pseudonymous editors to respond to accusations made off-wiki without losing their own privacy, and 2) it's extremely stressful for people to have to argue in multiple places at once.

Sometimes this norm puts a damper on people's freedom to criticize organizations off-wiki. It's a trade-off we accept individually for the sake of the project. Usually it is a small trade-off because on-wiki processes work in simple cases of promotion/spam. You set out to stop the NUA promotion and you succeeded through the on-wiki process. Trust the process.

Does this make sense? And going forward, can you agree to not do Phase 2 - type stuff to solve Wikipedia problems? If in doubt about whether writing something off-wiki is OK you an always email an admin to ask. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick read suggests that's basically the timeline, although I haven't checked in detail.

Your argument seems to be that I (and all other editors) have agreed to observe the first rule of Fight Club. I.E. never to talk about Wikipedia, except on Wikipedia. I was never made aware of any such rule on sign up, and I've still never seen it written anywhere. I don't work for Wikipedia, and I'm not a spokesperson for it. I have no special access or privileges, nor do I claim any. Therefore, I don't see why I (or anyone similar) should be expected to obey the first rule of Fight Club - whether written or unwritten. If this really is the policy, it needs to be explicitly stated - and agreed to - on sign up. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]