User talk:Dustfreeworld

Maiori forsan cum timore sententiam in me fertis quam ego accipiam ("Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it")  – Giordano Bruno

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I added this just to clarify that simply saying the word “sh*t” is not sanctionable, but using it to describe/attack another editor is probably is. Are you having problem with that?

And to borrow their words, I am tired of their attacks, their harassment, their complete lack of couth. No, they aren’t the worst editor in the history of the project. I am.

So do you really think I am a very hypocritical bad faith incompetent deceptive editor who sh*t on others who persistently making disruptive edits, casting aspersions, wikilawyering, showing classic WP:TE? (You know all these stem from the fact that people presumed that a tbanned user is a bad editor [yes the tban that you refused to amend. FYI, according to our policies it’s not correct to say that you can not amend it “unilaterally”. It is imposed by a single admin and is amendable by that single admin.] It caused much misunderstandings, prejudices, humiliations and cyberbullying/harassments afterwards. I have been tolerating all that. And you now choose to block me. Do you think it’s fair? You are trying to destroy the last bit of respect that I have for you). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to bully the blocking admin is probably not your best choice of action. Bullying me is allowed, I'm a nobody here, but ScottishFinnishRadish is a respected member of this community. I only pray that they read the entire report, and see how many times you attacked other editors in the space of a week. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I just read this

• User talk:Adolphus79#c-Hiobazard-20241029140200-Hi Adolphus79, 2
  • I do see who is canvassing and bullying our admin now.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, re ”Bullying me is allowed ... I only pray that they read the entire report, and see how many times you attacked other editors in the space of a week” No that’s not true.

I’ve never bullied or attacked anyone. Everything I said in that WP:ANI discussion is true. Saying that I have, without providing any diff (that isn’t misrepresented), is bordering on aspersions. Yes there are serveral other editors that disagree with /criticise me in that discussion. However, the fact that for a high visibily venue like that (up to 6-7K pageviews per day), there were only so few of them, and that almost all of them were either pinged / canvassesd to that discussion and/or have content disputes with me before (including the bloocking admin, who were pinged there), i.e., not uninvolved, is enough to prove that who is at wrong and that the silent majority is likely on my side. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when you protested to my closure at WP:AE, I would reopen it for another six hours if you wanted. Most people don't want reports open any longer than necessary, and it was clear that would be the result. Being a consensus of administrators at AE it would require a clear consensus at an appeal to modify or overturn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think after a person has stabbed someone, one can pretend that nothing had happened just by saying that “ok I’ll take out the knife if you want”. But it’s up to you. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it’s not “a consensus of administrators”, as you can’t close that AE discussion as “a consensus of administrators” in less than 24 hours according to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures [1][2] But again, you are the one with the power and it’s all up to you. It’s how this Wikipedia works. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adolphus79, you followed me from Indoor air quality to Air pollution in the United Kingdom to Joss paper ,etc. to the totally unrelated Asian News International, assuming bad faith, harass me and casting aspersions since 17 Oct, first on my talk then at ANI, refused to my attempt to make peace, saying that you had “mental health crisis” on my talk and saying that I bullied you at ANI. Aside from those emotional blackmail, which did earn my empathy, you cast 20-40 misrepresentations / aspersions against me either on my talk or at ANI. Just because you can’t accept losing, just like you did at RfA [3] (and I don’t think you have improved even you did admit after you were told that “you don’t have any knowledge about our policies” [4]). You know what kind of person you are. Do not post to this Talk page again. I’ll view any further comment by you as WP:HARASSMENT. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the discussion at WP:ANI that leads to the above block:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1254115812#User:Dustfreeworld_and_CIR

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OP (and all the related IPs) who filed that ANI complaint against me is now blocked (CheckUser block):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:0:0:0:0/64

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adolphus79 blocked on 29 Oct for grave dancing [5]. Unblocked the next day upon appeal
• Karnataka officially warned for engaging in sock puppetry [6], "The only reason that you're not currently blocked is because I didn't notice it until now, and blocks aren't supposed to be punitive."

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, just a few hours after I made the above post, it seems that User:Karnataka had made a request to rename user "Karnataka" to "Renamed user 941cc78c00a0c5924c78bcbe91e8541a", and now their account is globally locked. I think it’s the result of a successful account vanishing request? But per Account vanishing, “Even if vanish is intended to be permanent, it may still be reversed” ...

Actually this is not the first time that they request for renaming. They have requested to have their name changed from Tirishan to Karnataka after a sockpuppet investigation that was closed as no action in May 2023 [7][8]

Will they be back as an established user who has never been sanctioned? I don’t know. Vanish may still be reversed, and they have a *clean* block log, much much cleaner than that of mine ;-)

a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=renameuser&user=&page=Karnataka&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist

• 17:30, 4 November 2024 TenWhile6 talk contribs renamed user Karnataka (6,282 edits) to Renamed user 941cc78c00a0c5924c78bcbe91e8541a (per request)
• 19:54, 8 June 2023 Neriah talk contribs renamed user Karnataka (0 edits) to Karnataka (usurped) (per usurp request on enwiki)

b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=move&user=&page=User%3AKarnataka&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist

• 17:30, 4 November 2024 TenWhile6 talk contribs moved page User:Karnataka to User:Renamed user 941cc78c00a0c5924c78bcbe91e8541a without leaving a redirect (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Karnataka" to "Renamed user 941cc78c00a0c5924c78bcbe91e8541a") (revert) (thank)

c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?page=User:Karnataka&title=Special:Log/delete

• 18:29, 26 July 2023 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Karnataka (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)
• 14:18, 8 July 2023 Sdrqaz talk contribs deleted page User:Karnataka (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit (thank)

And, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Renamed_user_941cc78c00a0c5924c78bcbe91e8541a

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add this last time,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tirishan

"Tirishan" is not registered on this wiki. Please check CentralAuth to see if the account is registered on other wikis.

This user has been renamed. The rename log is provided below for reference.

• 19:54, 8 June 2023 Neriah talk contribs renamed user Tirishan (1,412 edits) to Karnataka (per usurp request on enwiki)

This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

• 18:10, 4 June 2023 Pathoschild talk contribs deleted page User:Tirishan (replaced by global user page (requested by Tirishan)) (thank)

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please free the dust. ShurykaN (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail, re your recent comment at ANI and some of your recent reverts, I believe there’s misunderstanding somewhere. Yes I’m against pollution. BUT, I don’t think there’s anyone in the world who is *not* against pollution. I really can’t agree with your comment that I’m here to “bring their advocacy against pollution into Wikipedia” or to RIGHTGREATWRONG. Quite the contrary, I’m here to improve our articles on that topic, and trying to reduce the biases/ misinformation/ viewpoint-unbalance. Per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis mine).

For example, for Air pollution in Hong Kong, before I edited it, it’s totally outdated, and heavily biased towards certain view points. [9] The causes are not just fuel combustion from power plants or cars. It’s much much more than that. Another example is the organization section. It only mentioned *one* organisation, which was heavily biased. I had removed it (moved to it's own article) and the list I added later was to fix that NPOV problem and FYI it’s *sourced* [10] to the government website [11][12] at the end of the section. Perhaps you didn’t notice the sources because I didn’t add it to every entry … I do agree maybe the list is a bit long and need some trimming, but I don’t think it should be completely removed.

While I do agree with some of your reverts and admit that I should have formatted the article better and shouldn’t have made it look like sandbox/draft, I believe most content removed are relevant and can be sourced, and I know HK so well that some info that looks like WP:SKYBLUE to me may look irrelevant or even advocacy for others … As I seem to be the only contributor there and the page has very low visibility (only 10-20 visitors each day), also, I was planning for retirement (after I have that article in an acceptable state) and was in a hurry, I admit that I was too relaxed with my edits there (e.g., many links that are now removed from the EL section should have been put in Further reading as sources for future article expansion instead of External links, and many of the see also links belong to the article body, instead, and, the structure/headings of the article needs much improvement which I didn’t have time to do better, etc.) Please accept my apologies. But again, please believe my good faith in making the article more comprehensive and less biased, instead of “advocacy”.

Another revert I want to talk about is the Other names section that you removed from Smog tower. FYI, the section was added per MOS:ALTNAME, and I’m not sure if a section like that needs to be sourced. It’s a new and emerging technology, with presence in countries that speaks different languages (e.g., Europe, India and China), and thus it’s not surprising for it to have many alternative names. Although I didn’t add the source, please be assured that all of them *can* be sourced. It’s because I either found those names *in* the sources when I edited the article, or, I had verified that those names were used in RS before adding them. I would be more than happy if you had tagged that section as Template:Unreferenced_section, rather than outright removal. Btw, I have never said that *everything* that's ever added to an article shouldn't be removed. No, that's not what I think. And I really don't understand why linking to the editing policy is a problem. People who really click on it and read on should know there are situations that justify removal (it's the first sub-section in FIXTHEPROBLEM ... I don't think everything should be preserved indiscriminately. Just that I believe most content can be tagged for improvement first (before possible removal), and that in this case for the Smog tower article, WP:CHALLENGE (which to my understanding means when an editor genuinely believes that no sources have ever been published that can support the material, and thus "material whose verifiability has been challenged" e.g., with a tag, can then be removed) should be a more appropriate reason for removal when compared with simply "unsourced" (for most non-contentious material).

There are more edits that I would like to explain or clarify. I should have written this a few days ago. But due to that case at ANI, which people holding grudges will make an issue with whatever thing I say, I decided to comment on “advocacy” only after that case. But that doesn’t matter anymore. Now that I’m blocked (at the highly visible ANI board with as much as 6K daily page views) and everyone thinks I’m a tendentious and disruptive (in addition to tbanned) editor, I can forsee that there will just be even more misunderstandings, prejudices, unneccessary conflicts, humiliations and cyberbullying/harassments in the future (unless I'm happy with being an editor that only fixes typos). FYI I'm not paid and I don't see any reason for me to tolerate all that anymore. I will retire (much sooner than I planned to) and I don’t think I will come back, except to fix some obvious problems in the articles (mostly not introduced by me) I contributed heavily (e.g., now in Air pollution in Hong Kong, Joss paper is under the section “Use of power tools”. Also, this section which talk about heavy equipments that use diesel does not belongs to the power tools section either. It’s somewhat complex. Construction and demolition can generate particulates both mechanically and by fuel combustion… and I haven’t made up my mind on the article’s structure yet, so there are the many empty sections you found). Btw, there are some very important causes missing from the air pollution in HK article now, for example construction and demolition wastes, electronic wastes (e wastes) and road works. E wastes is a significant issue in HK and was widely reported in the news (you can found some sources in the removed External links section). If you can add them back, I, and the people in my place, will definitely thank you for that. Regards,

PS. As for the low quality images, my apologies again, as I dropped my phone a few times recently ... re MOSIMAGERELEVANCE, as I took most of the photos and I see them happening almost every day, I’m quite sure that they are relevant, although the caption might have been written in a better way ... Aside, I believe that block of mine does reveal some problems of Wikipedia. For example, admins, like eveyone else, value their reputation and "face" and their relationship with other admins and/or editors. This sometimes makes actions (or no actions) difficult. This is something for the community (and/or WMF) to think about. Do we need separate accounts for admins (e.g., User:ABC (ADMIN), just like User:ABC (WMF)? Or, better yet, has someone who is completely uninvolved in the project (not even an editor) to be admin? Further, how should the harassment policies be enforced? Only when someone complains? Only enforced for those with first mover advantage? If the victims keep silence the admins keep silence too? Moreover, are we sure we need to have trials as public as what we now have at ANI, which are similar to "public spectacles", "public mass accusation meetings", etc. in which everyone (or anyone, including those who aren't from your village/city/state/country/continent and maybe just 8 years old, etc.) can throw stones? Can you imagine some of the employees of a publishing company (e.g., of a print encyclopedia) being yelled at or threatened with "Block! Ban! Fired!" Almost everyday? Is that a good working environment? Or just because here people are voluntory contributors so they have to accept that? Yes there is workplace bullying but that is another thing which is quite different from the open/public/internet "trials" we have here. Anyway. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has completed. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re what I said, "all those attacks, harassments, aspersions, following (hounding), etc. are very common, especially for the active editors who didn’t choose to “hide” and thus are not “low profile”, and even those from WMF can’t be exempted". That also apply to editors who had disclosed some of their personal information/affiliation such as religions, race, etc. Also more vulnerable are those who don't have ten to hundred thousands of edits, those who don't have any/much "hats" (permissions), those who are not "old"/long-term enough, those who were sanctioned before (no matter just or unjust; e.g., editors who don't have a clean block log, those who were topic banned..), and those who has stood up for others (instead of looking away) when they witness very bad behaviour, etc. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Dustfreeworld, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Santa here. We wish you a merry and Jolly Christmas or Honoka or voodoo spell ritual wherever you are.@Ozzie10aaaa@gonewild.net ShurykaN (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Dustfreeworld, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hello Dustfreeworld: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you also have a wonderful Christmas and New Year.

Best Boynamedsue (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Dustfreeworld! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.Onel5969 TT me 03:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Dustfreeworld, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

If angels sung a Savior’s birth, On that auspicious morn, We well may imitate their mirth, Now He again is born! If stars in heav'n shone bright as day To light the manger throne, We should rejoice as well as they That love doth reign alone. All Glory be to God on high, And to the earth be peace; Goodwill henceforth from heav'n to men Begin and never cease. - "Milford" by Joseph Stephenson, text anonymous

4meter4 (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you a good New Year, and feel better sooner. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). Thank you for your wishes with rosy design! - My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation: A skill based momentum platformer where you try to grind for times and SS levels. ShurykaN (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Air pollution in Hong Kong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you don't quite understand what the role of a closer is ([15]). As a closer, you're supposed to determine the consensus of a discussion. Instead, you seem to have supervoted, closing the discussion as you thought was best for the encyclopedia, making this a WP:BADNAC. The closer role is the same if you were an admin or a non-admin, and the fact nobody had closed the discussion yet, was likely due to bludgeoning by multiple participants rather than "no appetite". I believe there were 10 in favour of a wider topic ban vs 2 happy with the limited voluntary bans. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke, in your opinion, in this case, what would be the difference between the outcome of a topic ban and that of voluntary restriction? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Three differences were identified in the discussion [16]: (1) the coverage of the TBAN beyond the 3 articles. This would prevent mentioning her client on other articles. (2) indefinite time period, as COI doesn't disappear after the PE editing stint is over (3) the inclusion of future paid clients, ensuring we're not back in one or two years with similar issues. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that all the “differences” you mentioned are the personal opinion of one editor only (and now with your full support) as indicated by the link you posted, instead of a general agreement of editors. BTW, attempts to make an article complete and accurate with the needed information do not necessarily mean “promoting one’s workplace”. Further, if that’s really what the community wants, it won’t take 3 weeks with 1 auto-achieving plus your closure request but still in vain. Also, some of the points mentioned are already included in the voluntary restrictions or in the suggestions in my closing statement.

Lastly, are you telling us that you are assuming that an editor you described as “replies to feedback” will deliberately promote her future paid clients after this loooong hurtful ANI discussion with other editors (like you) having told her not to?

PS. I found the idea that COI from PE lasts indefinitely quite intriguing. Many times even a marriage can’t last forever. We do see many business partners end up confronting at the court. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to redo the discussion, taking a clear position yourself, further indicating you were supervoting. Please undo your close.

These differences between the voluntary and involuntary TBAN are not really a matter of opinion: they should be clear from just comparing them.

(As this is not EMsmile's first rodeo with COI editing, yes, I believe so may deliberately or probably inadvertently promote future paid clients.) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I am WP:INVOLVED in the discussion, I would tend to agree with Femke's assessment. I'd also add that some of the quotes you used were misleading/cut off. For instance, you wrote This thread was auto-archived 10 days ago but was restored by the topic ban proposer, who said they "prefer voluntary restrictions". However, what the topic ban proposer actually said was:

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

Clearly, that quote was taken out of context as the topic ban proposer didn't prefer voluntary restrictions in this particular case, and its use in the closing statement is not an accurate summary of what the person meant here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby, AFAICT, the proposer did discuss with EMSmile at other venues to have the wordings of the voluntary restriction adjusted after they posted the comment you quoted. My interpretation is that In principle they “prefer voluntary restrictions” although a forced restriction “would be useful” if certain conditions they set can’t be met. I don’t think they strongly oppose to the voluntary restrictions, and I don’t think we need to wait for a “100% satisfaction” from one person (the proposer) on the detail terms of the restrictions before the discussion can be closed. And the fact is that the community is exhausted (even the tban proposer said so elsewhere). I think it’s time for people to drop the stick and move on. I don’t think we need 160+ comments here. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think we need to wait for a “100% satisfaction” from one person (the proposer) on the detail terms of the restrictions before the discussion can be closed. I don't think so either, but in that case, their position shouldn't be misrepresented in the close – or, if they did indeed change their position, then that should be quoted instead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke, re

I believe there were 10 … vs 2 …

Then you should have closed the discussion yourself. (FYI, there were 26 people in that discussion). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that I am WP:involved, as you also took something I said out of context. If you do not know that these things should be closer by somebody uninvolved, closing is not something you should do yet. This is usually left to more experienced editors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding that a late close is preferable to a bad close. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke, of course I know that “these things should be closer by somebody uninvolved”. Just thinking that you might have other reasons that I might not have noticed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand the question? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Femke and Chaotic Enby that this was a bad close. I'm contemplating taking this to WP:AN for a closure review next week if things are not resolved here. I think I have made it clear that I am opposed to voluntary-only restrictions in this case. I don't know how my comments could be read in the opposite way. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt your observation that the proposer did discuss with EMSmile at other venues to have the wordings of the voluntary restriction adjusted, the only discussion I can recall had me saying "Your userpage updates are an improvement but still well short of 6.9 million articles." [17] You are using the fact that I engaged in a discussion to distort what I said in that discussion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on WP:AN. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to further derail the discussion, since it seems headed for a lopsided overturn anyway, but in addition to what I said here and here (which I stand by, and will use as the basis of an WP:AN discussion seeking to bar you from further closures in the future if you continue to double down even after your close is overturned), I think I have to point out that the WP:COI accusations you keep leveling at other users, and which you use as the basis of your defense for your WP:SUPERVOTE, were not actually substantiated in that discussion; you are engaging in WP:ASPERSIONs every time you repeat them. Please stop. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You are entitled to your own opinion though. IMO every time you mention “double down”…“your SUPERVOTE”, etc. you are engaging in the last SUPERCASE you mention above. FYI, the Global System Institute is significantly engaged in he Solar Radiation Modification research. Please read https://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/institutes/gsi/research/rci/

As I’ve said at AN, I really don’t want to spend my volunteer time on all these any more. I’m disappointed that how the good-faith efforts to mediate a dispute can be misrepresented like that. And unlike them, I’m not paid to edit and all these is just a waste of time. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dustfreeworld,

As you found out, deciding to be BOLD and close a deletion discussion, RFC or topic ban discussion always carries risks. I've been closing AFD discussions for over 4 years and have had my share brought to WP:DRV when an editor took issue with my closure. I've noticed that non-admin closures are challenged more often than admin closures which is why we recommend to NACs not to close discussions that could be considered controversial or close calls (see Wikipedia:Non-admin closure). In my experience, discussions at DRV can become very personal and it has been recommended to me more than once that I resign my position as admiistrator because an editor or admin disagreed with my closure rationale.

So, while this discussion involving your closure has become heated, this is not an unusual situation with closure reviews. If I had seen this earlier, I would have recommended to you that you revert your closure, which is what NACs generally do with AFDs, but, for whatever reason, you have decided to fight back and argue your stance. Since this has you arguing against more editors and ones with more editorially experience, I don't think this is an argument you can win. But these challenges have caused you to come to a more firm understanding on why you chose the closure the way you did and I think that is a good exercise if you decide to continue and, hopefully, close less contentious discussions in the future.

I should add that I didn't keep up with this discussion on ANI during the weeks it went on and I have no position on how it should have been closed. But I empathized with your position as a beseiged closure and thought I'd drop you a note. My only recommendation is to think about the resistance you are facing and consider if this one editing decision that you want to influence your position as an editor. That's a decision only you can answer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you said. Just to clarify, re for whatever reason, you have decided to ...

There *is* a reason. The reason is that no one should turn a blind eye when things like this happens, no matter s/he is an administrator/arbitrator/bureaucrat or just an editor. That’s a sin. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at WP:POV railroad seem really WP:POINTy. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It sounds like you feel like you've been bullied on Wikipedia. While you may feel like this, please do not inject this into essays in Wikipedia-space. Changing an advice page to give advice such as you are nothing and the batch of shame will be with you forever, 2) you can never be right again, you are wrong, forever, because they think they are right and you are wrong is not appropriate. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

One needs to remember that they are nothing when begging in that situation, otherwise it won’t sound sincere. “The batch of shame will be with you forever” is definitely right of course. It remains in WP:Personal sanctions and Special:Log/block (or their archives) and sometimes even on their user page forever even after one had died (or many times even after a successful appeal). What’s more, just citing “you can never be right again, you are wrong, forever, because they think they are right and you are wrong” without citing the text that immediately follows (“you can never refute, because they shut you up with sanction and you can’t even mention a word about that topic anywhere; not in any discussion venues, and not even your user space!”) seems quoting out of context. BTW, note that the conservative wording I used is “be prepared that”, which means that those phrases may or may not come true.

While discussing the wording used in my edits is welcome, I don’t think throwing an UPPERCASE outright at a good-faith editor is appropriate. Please retract your untrue claims. Thanks.

Re: “It sounds like you feel like you've been bullied on Wikipedia. While you may feel like this,” Do you think so? While you may feel like this, where are you at that time, my respectable administrator? I hope you aren’t coming here to join them. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC); 07:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pollution in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Air pollution in Hong Kong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grinding.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moral emotions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guilt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your recent editing of project-space pages. The thread is Dustfreeworld's editing of project-space pages. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:POV railroad. — Newslinger talk 16:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your AE topic ban most recently with this edit on the page Air pollution in Hong Kong, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namely, here. Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dustfreeworld. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting my comment on your sock's talkpage when I revoked talkpage access there and encouraged you to post here instead: if you ping Femke again on your main account, I'll revoke talkpage access there too. She's dealt with more than enough of your bullshit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]