User talk:Battlefortheconscience

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Dustfreeworld 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]

@Tamzin,

In this page, there's a section called "Comments by other users" which stated that "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims."

Why am I not allowed to defend myself there before I was blocked? Please remove the restriction so that I can post there.

With regard to "same tactics, same writing style" as the other user, can you give us some examples? Battlefortheconscience (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPI is not an adversarial process but an investigative one. If the accused happens to show up, they're allowed to comment, but our procedures don't call for that. SPIs are decided on objective grounds and in most cases someone insisting—truthfully or not—that they aren't a sock won't have much bearing on that; in cases where it might have a bearing, like where it's unclear whether something is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, we do ping editors to get their opinion.

If you would like to make the case that you are not a sockpuppet, you are welcome to do so as part of an unblock request. As to examples of you using the same tactics and same writing style, I think that should be self-evident comparing Special:Contribs/Battlefortheconscience and Special:Contribs/Dustfreeworld. If the reviewing admin doesn't see the similarities they're welcome to ping me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change is real, but, it is preventable. Black carbon from wildfires and other types of incomplete combustion is a main driver of climate change. It's responsible for the melting of snow too. 85% of wildfires are started by human and can be prevented. Currently wildfires are classified by some organizations as natural and may not be compared together with other carbon emission source and thus overlooked. Other dust like cement dust also contribute to global warming. There are many things we can do to mitigate climate change, instead of deploying dangerous idea like solar radiation modification. Electric vehicle is good in the sense that they don't use fossil fuels. However, they still use as much lead-acid battery as other cars do. Lead-acid battery is a *major* pollution concern and should *never* be overlooked, not to mention the fugitive dust casued by road traffic. Overstressing the benefits of electric vehicle may mislead people or even governments into thinking that elective vehicles are environmental friendly and not doing anything to limit their number. Public transport is the way to go, not private electric cars.

One of the reason that our world is a mess now can be that people are not using the resources and money to solve the real problems. The real sources of climate change and pollution are largely ignored. Large amount of money is put into unnecessary and may even be dangerous research on climate interventions. Our problematic Climate change article, of which Femke, is the main contributor, who has a COI, is likely responsible for that mess too. There are many other similar concerns in the air pollution article. I can be wrong, but at least, I *don't* have any COI.

You choose to ignore and turn a blind eye to the COI issue being raised, but to overemphasize the sockpuperry concern instead. Why? To defend your own reputation? To defend your colleague Femke, who is also an admin? Or any other reasons that we don't know?

What you are doing is likely castatrophic to the world. People who are reading this and allowing that to happen are responsible too.

I'd rather believe that it's because you didn't understand the COI evidence presented to you and don't understand how importance the issue is.

I don't want to believe how bad people can be. Femke had opened up my eyes already. We don't need more of that. Once I thought you're a reasonable admin who will stand up, but now, Hmmm

May I ask if you have read this page about Femke's COI issue before?

If you haven't, I'll still give you benefit of the doubt and believe that you are acting in good faith. If you have read that and still choose to be their complicit, I believe you are abusing your power. Such an admin should be recalled.

0

About your block of the other IPs, I don't think that's okay. Nothing in our policy mentions that topic-banned user can never edit while logged out. There are many reasons for editing while logged out, such as lossing password. You said they "evade scrutiny", but the fact is, you checked their contributions and concluded that there's no clear tban violation. In other words, there's nothing to scrutinize. What to "evade" than? What you said is not reasonable.

Moreover, I believe you've misunderstood the privacy policy. WMF privacy policy doesn't allow CU to link IP address to user account. Even with solid technical evidence, such linking is not allowed to protect user's privacy. Why do you think linking with opiniated "behavioral evidence" should be allowed? You don't need to notify WMF for those blocks, but *linking* IP address to user name like you did, from block logs to talk pages to noticeboard and so on, is *not* allowed.

With you and Femke's endless, baseless and numerous sock puppet claims, now linking different IPs and people and account to this account of mine, I would like to clarify that, *I didn't made any edits to the page List of websites blocked in mainland China*. I've never edited that page. Edits like this was *not* made by me. What Femke said "and I believe they were WP:LOUTSOCKING in 55 (other contributions overlap with DFW's interest around China, dust exposure etc)" is untrue and close to personal attack and racial discrimination. That being said, If I really did edit that page, their linking of user account to multiple IP addresses that way *is* an obvious intrusion of privacy that can bring serious real life consequences. You shouldn't endorse that.

0

I cannot understand why you close the discussion at COIN. What need to be hidden? If there's nothing to hide, I think you should reopen it for people to discuss.

I was preparing to post at COIN but was blocked while doing so. This is what I intended to post:

Some evidence:

Use of advocative sources like this one, which is written by the Mercator Research Institute, an institute similar to the one Femke is associated with.
To make matters worse, one of the paper’s authors, Ulrike Kornek, had also published a paper co-authored with Femke. In other words, Femke had cited sources written by people they knew in real life, without any prior disclosure.
Fact picking, underestimating the importance of some pollution sources and overemphasizing those relevant to their research interests. For example, in this source which they used, it was stated that "residential fuel use, energy generation, industries, transportation, agriculture, windblown dust, waste combustion, and construction activities" all are significant contributors of PM2.5 pollution. Their relative contributions vary across the globe. This is also supported by government sources like Emissions of air pollutants in the UK. However, Femke choosed to remove the word "construction" from the lead and restored the article to their preferred version, [1] They also removed content stating that wildfires are major pollution source, will exacerbate climate change, and most of them are caused by human and thus are preventable. As these content is not their research interest and may be contradict to their research focus of active climate interventions [2][3]

If you are a fair admin who is not abusing your power, you should make sure people at COIN know what I said above, and the link to POV talk page.

You have never commented on User:Femke's conflict of interest issues. Why? Are you going to tell us that you have a conflict of interest too?

0

"SPIs are decided on objective grounds"

"should be self-evident"

On objective ground? Really?

By saying, "self-evident" you essentially mean "I don't have any evidence, I say you are sock puppet, so you are."

The conclusion at SPI is "inconclusive", but you use it as the reason to block, pasting everywhere that "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Dustfreeworld per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dustfreeworld".

I was so naive to think that administrators here were great people. They were people with conduct much higher than average. I was wrong. Completely wrong. Well, may be most of them are, but *just* a few of bad admins can be devastating.

In the future, may be WMF needs to hire people who have no conflict of interest to help safeguard the quality of articles. At the very least the articles should be neutral. They shouldn't be used as tools to get benefits in real life. I don't think Distfreeworld should come back. Why should they? Come back to be bullied? To have their reputation further smeared, to be portrayed as an editor who is trying to deceive and "evade scrutiny"? What benefits would they get? Will they become an admin like you if they come back? Or will they just find out more on how unjust Wikipedia can be, how ridiculous that ANI system can be, or how ugly people can be? To recall why they were blocked initially because they stood up for another user who was treated unfairly at ANI? To admire how great the badges of shame in their block logs are? How amazing the huge badge added by you on their user page is?

0

I would like to share with you (and all admins, crafts, etc.) this paragraph from Mencious (book):

Mencius also counsels against the political use of violence and force:

When one uses force to win people's allegiance, as opposed to subdue others by virtue, one does not win people's hearts and minds; they submit to your force because they are not strong enough. (§4A:7)

I hope you know what you are doing. Battlefortheconscience (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in our policy mentions that topic-banned user can never edit while logged out. Yes there is, see WP:BLOCKEVADE. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not the right section. WP:SCRUTINY, as extended by WP:LOUTSOCK. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They said they were topic banned, so I assumed they were editing while logged out and/or used sockpuppets to evade their ban. But yeah SCRUTINY applies too in this case, and also WP:PROJSOCK (COI/N noticeboard.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban is not a block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you're right, since they were only topic banned from "medical topics," not climate change. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DFW, the "How dare you call me a sock?" schtick works better if you're not also posting massive screeds nearly identical to what you've posted on your main account. Anyways, you can appeal this block on your main account. I've revoked talkpage access on this one. Although 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|🤷) 16:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]