Talk:Anne Klibanski

Requested update to career section

Hello. I am posting this request on behalf of an agency rather than editing the article directly.

I wanted to suggest a small, neutral update to the "Career" section. There is currently a broken citation in the article, and a few career details may benefit from clearer sourcing. I have kept the proposed changes limited to material that appears to be straightforward and verifiable. (en.wikipedia.org)

Suggested replacement text:

From 2012 to 2019, Klibanski served as chief academic officer of Partners HealthCare.{{cite news |title=Partners Names Klibanski As Interim President/CEO |url=https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/02/19/partners-healthcare-interim-ceo-anne-klibanski |work=WBUR |date=February 19, 2019 |access-date=April 9, 2026}} After being named interim president and chief executive officer in February 2019, she was appointed president and CEO in June 2019, becoming the first woman to lead the system.{{cite news |last=Goldberg |first=Carey |title=Dr. Anne Klibanski Is First Woman To Lead Partners HealthCare |url=https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/06/26/anne-klibanski-partners-healthcare-ceo |work=WBUR |date=June 26, 2019 |access-date=April 9, 2026}}{{cite news |title=Partners names Dr. Anne Klibanski as its new CEO |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/06/25/partners-names-anne-klibanski-its-new-president-ceo/eh00k0hroVDXbICQ8EpZkO/story.html |work=The Boston Globe |date=June 25, 2019 |access-date=April 9, 2026}} In 2026, she was elected chair of the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association board of trustees.{{cite web |title=MGB's Klibanski Elected Chair of MHA's Board |url=https://www.mhalink.org/mondayreport/feb-2-2026/ |website=Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association |date=February 2, 2026 |access-date=April 9, 2026}}

I also suggest removing the broken citation currently in the article and reviewing the sentence about board service for Albireo Pharmaceuticals, Partners International, and Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, since that material may need stronger or updated inline sourcing. (en.wikipedia.org)

Thank you for considering this request. 829-AISO (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Added the interim appointment with sources, and fixed the broken citation. The board appointments are from a 2019 source and may not reflect current appointments; keeping until a reliable source clarifies recent appointments. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Controversies Section - Straight Propaganda

{{adminhelp}} I wasn’t aware that labor bargaining issues could be presented on Wikipedia in a way that effectively turns a living person’s biography into a vehicle for advocacy. The entire controversies section should be removed, along with any references to compensation. In the alternative, the article should present both sides fairly and provide appropriate context. Most of MGB's refutations can be found here: https://bwhnursingupdates.com/ ~2026-45117-46 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a relevant discussion that should not be erased in its entirety. I would recommend adding further context instead if you consider it defamatory DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 12:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a forum for adjudicating public debate. There are other channels for that, particularly when the commentary is one-sided and comes from the same group whose members are making extreme and threatening statements about her on Facebook. ~2026-45117-46 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

{{help me}} ~2026-45117-46 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I never said the section cannot be amended, I am simply stating that if there is a verifiable controversy, there's no reason to remove it. DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 13:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Please consider adding information and context. This is not "public shaming" if there are relevant sources. No person is immune from a controversy section on Wikipedia DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 13:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Presenting information neutrally is the purpose of this encyclopedia. A refutation from a primary source connected to the subject does not pass muster. Rather than add a differing perspective, you summarily deleted secondary sources regarding controversy over her executive pay. I once again ask that you divulge any COI with this subject and refrain from making further edits. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• What use of the admin tools is being sought here? Admins do not settle content disputes. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

2026 strikes...include or not?

Folks are invited to discuss this here...it just needs some more eyes on it. I would leave it out of the article for the time being, until consensus is formed. Just don't do the editwar back and forth. Lectonar (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Exclude with the references that were in the article. If there are better references that detail Klibanski as being in some way responsible for the strike they can certainly be discussed. FDW777 (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I also agree, I think the strike details belong in Mass General Brigham Celjski Grad (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, I note there's no mention of the strike at the clearly more relevant article, nor has there been any attempt to add it there. FDW777 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely can be added to the hospital page, given it's the largest nurses strike in state history, but given the grievances are directed towards Klibanski, it would be relevant to include as a "controversy". This does not mean she is directly responsible for an action, but this strike did occur under her leadership, and a reasonable person would believe it to be relevant to her page. It's lack of inclusion on the main page is not a reason to not include it here as well. DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 13:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

None of the references say that. FDW777 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

One of the references absolutely references that it occurred under her leadership, and the years match up. Furthermore, a letter, (which is referenced) was sent to her. I find it difficult to understand why this should not be included. DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 14:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

So what if it occurred under her leadership? Did she cause it? And that's only a question that can be answered by providing references, not by you arguing she was the cause. FDW777 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You're making the point here. She has nothing to do with the strike.

It's the same as if saying she initiated the layoffs. She did not. The decision was reached by clinical, academic, and administrative leaders from across the system. Layoffs were also primarily management, administrative, and non-clinical, too.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/12/mgb-layoffs/ ~2026-45117-46 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The compensation piece is a joke, too. Her compensation has been reported to be significantly below that of executives leading comparably sized healthcare organizations nationally.

Citation: https://lowninstitute.org/what-do-the-highest-paid-nonprofit-hospital-ceos-have-in-common/ ~2026-45117-46 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know how to gauge comparability between healthcare organizations, but a counterview would need to come from a verified reliable source and not as original research from an editor. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this, otherwise every controversy connected to the hospital could be included in her article (which is meant to be a biography) simply by virtue of her being in charge. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily "every" controversy, but would it not be relevant to include the largest nurse's strike in state history? DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 14:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Not really; 30% of her biography currently consists of controversy over one item: her pay. This can be reduced to the first paragraph under Executive compensation along with a ‘Main article’ link to the Mass General article where, oddly, the largest nurse's strike in state history isn’t even mentioned. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

And I really don't have any stake in this, but I've made similar removals before. It's not uncommon for people in disputes to attempt to put the blame onto individual people. If Anne Klibanski is in some way personally responsible for the strike it should be a simple matter to provide references, rather than simply trying to transfer blame because she's in charge therefore it must be her fault. FDW777 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Please look closely at the compensation section as well, applying the same BLP, neutrality, and due-weight standards. As written, it presents the criticism without the context necessary to evaluate it fairly, leaving readers with a materially incomplete picture.

https://lowninstitute.org/what-do-the-highest-paid-nonprofit-hospital-ceos-have-in-common/ ~2026-45117-46 (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, in no way does it indicate a direct action she has taken. It is a controversy, meaning there is a conflict that includes her. The compensation was a critical point of the strike, and, by name, she was directly included in that. This is the information I have included. I have no stake and do not know Klibanski or her history, but it appears to be relevant to wage strikes. More than 4,000 nurses strike over wage dispute at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital | WBUR News DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 14:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Your reference says Union members have also criticized the salaries of Mass General Brigham executives including the company’s CEO, Dr. Anne Klibanski, who received more than $8.4 million in compensation in 2024 (no other mentions of her at all). Does she set her own pay and associated compensation? The absolute best that reference would cover is about a sentence in the pre-exsting "Executive compensation" sub-section, rather than trying to paint Klibanski as somehow responsible for the whole strike, which is a stance that goes way above and beyond what the reference says. FDW777 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Her compensation is set by the board. She has no control over her compensation. What is more, is that her compensation has been one of public record since her tenure started at Partners. It is now relevant because the MNA conveniently released a press release today highlighting her compensation in the midst of a labor fight? Where is the neutrality in editing? Whoever edited this page prior to DonnieNova and FDW clearly has a conflict of interest that was not disclosed and the page should be returned to it’s previous state. ~2026-45251-08 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

https://finance.yahoo.com/healthcare/articles/mna-9-2-million-mass-132600737.html

It’s not random. Someone isn’t disclosing a conflict of interest. Who is it? And why? ~2026-45251-08 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It also seems completely out of place for the first section of this article to talk about executive compensation. It’s neither relevant nor connected to her biography or her early life, education, or career. ~2026-45144-83 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You are incorrect. A biography is not a hagiography; the lead mentions the 4 most notable things about Klibanski: that she is a scientist, CEO of MGB, the first woman to be thus, and that her pay has received widespread attention. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Independent Editor Requested

Request for an uninvolved editor to review and compare my recent revisions with the version subsequently restored/rewritten by another editor, particularly regarding executive compensation, the 2025 layoffs, and the 2026 labor dispute. Seeking a third opinion on which treatment better reflects the cited reliable sources and WP, WP, WP, and WP. ~~~~~ @RabidTuberculosis @FDW777

Pujolsfan12 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Flagging For Neutral Editor

Flagging for admin help and requesting review by an uninvolved content editor. I have no conflict of interest here; I came across this edit dispute and have sought to correct the record based on the most current reliable sources and a neutral reading of the facts. Given the continued disagreement, this should now be resolved objectively and conclusively for the benefit of readers. Pujolsfan12 (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not really something an admin does. If you would like to get some other editors to help work out your problem check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikipedia:Third opinion. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Administrators don't engage in content disputes. I believe this has already been established here. _signed, Willondon (talk)

Flagging for Neutral Review

Requesting review by an uninvolved content editor

• 12:49, 19 August 2026 diff hist  −2,666  Anne Klibanski This dispute concerns a BWH contract (https://www.massnurses.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/BWH-contract-2023-2026-Final-cm.pdf), not a contract to which Klibanski is a party or signatory. The agreement is negotiated by BWH and signed by its Chief Nursing Officer. Klibanski did not participate in bargaining. Citing her compensation as a union talking point does not establish a substantive role in the dispute, and its inclusion here gives undue weight to an incidental association. current Tag: Visual edit

Editor2555 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Stripping of Critical Coverage

Some months ago, a PR agency posted on the talk page, disclosing a COI, and suggesting promotionally-worded material as well as some fixes. After creating the page on November 24, 2025, there had been very few edits. I revised the article, adopting some fixes they suggested and ignoring promotional content, and as some months had elapsed since creation, scanned new sources and, among other things, added critical coverage about the subject from reliable secondary news sources.

Beginning on August 17, 2026, the article has been subjected to a sudden and immense amount of extremely detailed revisions, all of which are in the direction of stripping the article of critical coverage, edit-warring when other users reverse vandalism, and introducing promotional material. The anonymous, single-purpose accounts (see: @Pujolsfan12; @Bluechair999; @Editor2555; @~2026-45117-46) have an uncanny amount of information about the subject or proceedings at BWH that are not publicly known from referenced sources, and have engaged with almost desperate energy to gain "administrator aid" to prevent any restoration of critical material. I have asked these accounts to desist from making edits and disclose COI. They have failed to do so and continue making a large number of edits and reversals.

As the original creator, and one of seemingly few watchers of the page, I am losing the ability to effectively counter the onslaught of edits that are overwhelmingly biased to the subject, and have asked for page protection.

In the meantime, I'd like to respond to some of the comments made by the single-purpose accounts:

The entire controversies section should be removed, along with any references to compensation. In the alternative, the article should present both sides fairly and provide appropriate context. Most of MGB's refutations can be found here: https://bwhnursingupdates.com/

Actions made by the subject in the primarily role as executive, and covered widely by media, even if critical, are proper for inclusion. Her compensation is well-attested and is a reliably sourced factor in labor disputes concerning the hospital and her time as executive. The "refutations" from BWH itself are inappropriate for inclusion.

Edit: he article attributes the 193x figure to the Committee of Interns and Residents but provides no underlying data supporting the union’s calculation. Publicly available 2025–26 salary data from MGB residency programs appear to contradict the claim. See: https://www.mghbwhneurology.org/applicationinfo/salary-benefits

The figure by the CIR is reported by a reliable news organization (Boston Globe), and a cursory calculation against wage minimums shows that it is reasonable. The MGB residency program has no bearing on the pay for non-resident physicians, nurses, and technicians at the hospital. The deletion of this sourced text was therefore inappropriate.

Edit: The prior comparison may misrepresent Klibanski’s compensation growth relative to peers. New Boston Globe [26] reporting shows pay rose for most major Massachusetts health system CEOs in 2024, including increases of 28% at Tufts, 13% at BMC, 9% at Boston Children’s and Dana-Farber, and 6% at UMass Memorial. The suggestion that peers were generally taking pay cuts should be updated to reflect the latest reporting. If disputed, I welcome review by an uninvolved editor.

The deletion of sourced material, namely critical journalism from 2024 that reported on pay increases at MGH at a time when executive pay was lowered at other peer hospitals some years earlier, is not somehow abrogated by figures from more recent years. If anything, it warrants inclusion of both. Deletion of the former cannot be anything other than an effort to delete critical coverage.

Edit: While the statement that Anne Klibanski was the highest-paid hospital executive is correct, the cited figure applies to 2023. This is better reflected in the opening paragraph by noting that Klibanski is the highest-paid health care executive in Massachusetts, as the revised first sentence does, making a separate discussion of the 2023 ranking unnecessary.

??? It is inappropriate to delete sourced material stating that she was the highest-paid health care executive in a particular year. The sentence stated "Reporting on filings released in August 2025" which was correct; adding that they applied for year 2023 is fine. Instead, the entire line, including a line balancing the coverage with a statement from the board stating that it was proportionate, were deleted, obviously for optics. The edit, fascinatingly, does not add this detail to "the revised first sentence", and has in fact removed it entirely.

Edit: While her pay has drawn criticism, it has also drawn praise. Citation from link 7 from board chair indicates that her pay is well-earned. Because of this, it's fair to say that she has received praise, so isolating as criticism only would be undue.

Deleting mere mention of criticism because members of the board who approved her pay... approve of her pay... is blatant enough that I won't pursue a line of argument against it.

Edit: This dispute concerns a BWH contract (https://www.massnurses.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/BWH-contract-2023-2026-Final-cm.pdf), not a contract to which Klibanski is a party or signatory. The agreement is negotiated by BWH and signed by its Chief Nursing Officer. Klibanski did not participate in bargaining. Citing her compensation as a union talking point does not establish a substantive role in the dispute, and its inclusion here gives undue weight to an incidental association.

The question of whether to include material regarding a nursing strike was discussed above. The decision, it seems, is to include independent material attesting to Klibanski's actions or pay as executive in labor relations at the hospital. That the dispute is over something she did not sign is immaterial. As head of the hospital, her actions (which from reliable sources, seems to include administrating lay-offs, receiving high-profile bonuses etc.) are not an insignificant, trivial, or passing relation to the strikes. The deleted lines were minimal, neutrally worded, and well-sourced. Wholesale deletion (again) given the discussion on the talk page is, once more, inappropriate.

I really do not have the time, as these single-purpose accounts do, to go through every single deletion and analyze why the nitpick arguments are insubstantial in light of the sources. I ask that we converge on a stable version of the article that includes neutral critical coverage with due weight to the subject's role as executive and prevent anonymous PR accounts from flooding the page. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Multiple accounts are being made in a similar timeframe for the sole purpose of removing or editing information. The two most recent page editors were created within the same hour. Something fishy is going on. DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 17:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you entirely. I have no conflict of interest here. I routinely review newly cited Boston Globe reporting, and a recent article on health care executive compensation was added yesterday. That citation is what brought me to this page and prompted my review of the underlying content.

Edit 1:

Edit: [1] The entire controversies section should be removed, along with any references to compensation. In the alternative, the article should present both sides fairly and provide appropriate context. Most of MGB's refutations can be found here: https://bwhnursingupdates.com/

Actions made by the subject in the primarily role as executive, and covered widely by media, even if critical, are proper for inclusion. Her compensation is well-attested and is a reliably sourced factor in labor disputes concerning the hospital and her time as executive. The "refutations" from BWH itself are inappropriate for inclusion.

I think this is fair.

Edit 2:

Edit: [2] The prior comparison may misrepresent Klibanski’s compensation growth relative to peers. New Boston Globe [26] reporting shows pay rose for most major Massachusetts health system CEOs in 2024, including increases of 28% at Tufts, 13% at BMC, 9% at Boston Children’s and Dana-Farber, and 6% at UMass Memorial. The suggestion that peers were generally taking pay cuts should be updated to reflect the latest reporting. If disputed, I welcome review by an uninvolved editor.

The deletion of sourced material, namely critical journalism from 2024 that reported on pay increases at MGH at a time when executive pay was lowered at other peer hospitals some years earlier, is not somehow abrogated by figures from more recent years. If anything, it warrants inclusion of both. Deletion of the former cannot be anything other than an effort to delete critical coverage.

The older reporting is not being disputed as historically accurate. The issue is whether an earlier snapshot, in which some peer executives experienced pay declines, should continue to be used as the principal comparative frame when newer reporting shows that compensation subsequently increased for most major Massachusetts health system CEOs, often at rates comparable to or greater than Klibanski’s. Updating or condensing that comparison is not deletion of criticism; it is an effort to ensure that the article reflects the most current and representative context rather than preserving an outdated comparison that may now mislead readers.

Edit 3:

Edit: [3] While the statement that Anne Klibanski was the highest-paid hospital executive is correct, the cited figure applies to 2023. This is better reflected in the opening paragraph by noting that Klibanski is the highest-paid health care executive in Massachusetts, as the revised first sentence does, making a separate discussion of the 2023 ranking unnecessary.

??? It is inappropriate to delete sourced material stating that she was the highest-paid health care executive in a particular year. The sentence stated "Reporting on filings released in August 2025" which was correct; adding that they applied for year 2023 is fine. Instead, the entire line, including a line balancing the coverage with a statement from the board stating that it was proportionate, were deleted, obviously for optics. The edit, fascinatingly, does not add this detail to "the revised first sentence", and has in fact removed it entirely.

I fail to see the distinction being drawn here. The article already states the independently reported fact that Klibanski is the highest-paid hospital executive in Massachusetts. Beyond that fact, both the board’s defense of her compensation and the residents’ committee’s criticism of it are statements by interested parties. They may be cited as evidence of what those organizations have said, but neither should be elevated into an independently established conclusion about whether her compensation is appropriate or inappropriate.

Edit 4:

Edit: [4] While her pay has drawn criticism, it has also drawn praise. Citation from link 7 from board chair indicates that her pay is well-earned. Because of this, it's fair to say that she has received praise, so isolating as criticism only would be undue.

Deleting mere mention of criticism because members of the board who approved her pay... approve of her pay... is blatant enough that I won't pursue a line of argument against it.

I agree that the board chair's statement should not be characterized as independent “praise”; it is an interested-party defense and should be attributed as such. The neutral solution is therefore not to cancel criticism with praise, but to state the independently reported compensation facts and, where reactions are sufficiently notable for inclusion, attribute both criticism and defense to their respective sources with appropriate weight.

Edit 5:

Edit: [5] I think both positions risk overstating the evidence. Klibanski’s position as CEO of Mass General Brigham makes the labor dispute relevant context, but it does not by itself establish that she personally negotiated the BWH contract or made the specific bargaining decisions at issue. Conversely, the fact that she was not a signatory to the contract does not make her relationship to a major labor dispute within the system she leads merely incidental.

The appropriate test should be what reliable, independent secondary sources specifically attribute to Klibanski. If those sources discuss her compensation as a significant element of the strike, that criticism can be included with clear attribution to the union. If they establish actions she personally took in connection with the dispute, those actions should likewise be included. What should be avoided is using her position as CEO to infer a role that the sources do not establish, or using her absence from the bargaining table to imply that the dispute had no meaningful connection to her leadership.

The issue is instead one of sourcing and weight. Neither the union’s position nor the hospital’s position should determine Wikipedia’s narrative simply because one side has produced material supporting it. Where possible, contentious claims about Klibanski should be based on high-quality independent secondary reporting, with statements from BWH, MGB, the MNA, or other interested organizations clearly attributed as such.

To the extent there is a concern that my edits constitute PR or reflect an undisclosed conflict of interest, the article’s edit history provides useful context. There are prior edits that were explicitly promotional or made by editors with disclosed connections to the subject or institution; my edits bear little resemblance to those. I have no such connection or conflict.

More importantly, the edits should stand or fall on their merits: the quality and independence of the sources, whether the text accurately represents those sources, and whether the resulting article complies with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. I would prefer that the discussion remain focused on those questions rather than speculation about motives.@RabidTuberculosis Editor2555 (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The AI-generated text does not help quell the suspicion that you should not be making the edits you are performing User:Editor255 DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 18:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@RabidTuberculosis the page protection has been granted. Hopefully this solves the issue for the time being. I have sent in a SPI report about the TAs and users created in the past 24 hours. DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 19:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree. The single-use accounts are with little doubt going to lengths to remove appropriate and well-sourced information. This is far less blatant than the obvious PR edit that started this edit war, but still significant. Some rewording was in order, and it is definitely important to monitor neutrality on both sides in cases like this, but I don't see much actual issue with the previous state of the article even after reviewing arguments here and in edit summaries. Mangocove (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I've restored much of the deleted material, cleaned up wording, and added new references for her scientific work prior to becoming a healthcare executive. Thanks for your help, @DonnieNova and @Mangocove! RabidTuberculosis (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Flagging For Editorial Review

Hi all. I have disclosed a potential conflict of interest that may ultimately prove immaterial, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I believe it is appropriate to note that I was previously compensated to draft web-based marketing communications for Partners HealthCare in the early 2020s. This work did not involve public relations content.

I do not believe this constitutes a conflict of interest, as my edits are limited to accurately reflecting neutral, verifiable accomplishments, and I receive no compensation for this effort. Nor do I own, create, or license any of the cited Mass General Brigham sources. Nonetheless, I will submit the proposed edits through the talk page because I want to follow the appropriate process and preserve the integrity of the editorial record.

It appears that this page has generated considerable controversy over what should, frankly, be a relatively unremarkable biography of a living person who serves as the chief executive of a hospital system. Very unfortunate.

I respectfully ask that another editor reinstate the edits I previously made. Thank you.

cc: @RabidTuberculosis SouthSideMBA (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Contrary to what others seem to believe, I am an independent, fact-based editor from Chicago. I am done defending myself. Based on my understanding of Wikipedia’s policies, I am not comfortable putting myself forward publicly. But if doing so is what it takes to resolve this sham of a process, I will. I have absolutely nothing to hide. SouthSideMBA (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2026 (UTC)