SCAM WARNING!
If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone asking for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are not legitimate and you should contact paid-en-wpwikipedia.org immediately. Please see this page for more information.
If your comment is about an article, please consider adding the comment to the article's talk page, instead of adding it here. Wikipedia is a community effort, and other editors might have valuable opinions. You could add a comment here to let me know about your comment on the article's talk page. If I think your comment is about an article I may move it there and leave a note here saying I did so.
I absolutely hate conversations that thread across multiple pages. If you add a comment here, I will reply here. If I left a comment on your talk page and you reply here, I will move your reply back to your talk page. Please add this page to your watchlist to be informed when I reply.
Click here to email me. Emails sent through this form are private, however I may share their content privately with other users for administrative purposes. Please do not use {{ygm}} on this page: if you email me I will have already received an on-wiki notification.
First it appears that they have a brilliant mind, and clearly a WP:SME. Their self-doxing on their userpage links to a person who has deep experience in the field overall, which is something we really could use around here more often.
However, with that often comes the associated problem of NOTHERE/CIR issues. While I haven't engaged with the editor or indirectly on any of the pages their editing, their contrib history still is very concerning -- with collateral damage spreading -- possibly fueled by their understanding on their talk page that they were vindicated as landing on the correct side of the ANI.
In my ideal world they would undergo some sense of mentorship to navigate P&G, instead of their BIT / IDHT approach. At the end of the day, we really do want SME's here instead of blocking users for being disruptive. What are your thoughts, or is a formal ANI the only way forward? TiggerJay(talk)17:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have become involved on the talk page for one of these articles, and I have concerns beyond policy, xkcd 2501 comes to mind. Their focus on niche open-source hardware is a problem for notability and due weight unfortunately. The bootmaker may be able to write some fantastic articles on making boots, but have trouble keeping a balanced perspective when writing about shoes as a whole.
They have stopped responding on the talk page but continue imposing their preferred view on surrounding articles, I think WP:FAIT applies here. They also continue to cast aspersions against those who disagree with them. [1]REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk12:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching since their (now oversighted) post at ANI a few days ago, and I agree it's out of hand. I will be making a report, but give me some time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing the close
I just wanted to say thank you for your close of the RFC close challenge at WP:AN. Your handling of it was thoughtful, balanced, and exactly what was needed. Bravo! Nemov (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
