In today's Wikidrama, a group of foreigners invade an African place and use their power to impose American norms. This used to be called Imperialism… The Amharic (Ethiopian) language Wikipedia blocked an offensive username. > "Names calling attention to your sexual behavior have never been allowed here in 15 years and aren't suddenly allowed in 2018" https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-January/091568.html Fae complains to wikimedia-l because the blocked username was QueerEcofeminist. > An account block on the Amharic Wikipedia (am.wp) was flagged up yesterday on the WM LGBT+ Telegram discussion group Reminder, every Wikipedian consistently denies that there is any such offsite communications group. > After off-wiki discussion, the WMF Trust and Safety team has been approached for advice How is this in any way a "Trust and Safety" issue unless "Trust and Safety" means something else? Further discusson confirms that the block was for promoting homosexuality. https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D_%E1%8B%8D%E1%8B%AD%E1%8B%AD%E1%89%B5:Codex_Sinaiticus#QueerEcofeminist_block Codex Sinaiticus / Til Eulenspiegel, an admin with two accounts, blocked Teles as WP:NOTHERE for joining his wiki to do nothing but complain about the block, so MarcoAurelio revoked the the bureaucrat status that he had held for twelve years and opened a discussion for a global ban. https://am.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E1%88%8D%E1%8B%A9:Log/block&page=%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D%3ATeles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_Til_Eulenspiegel At present, the call for a global ban is supported by acagastya, Amory, AntiCompositeNumber, Atcovi, Az1568, Beeblebrox, Bellezzasolo, Bishonen, Boing! said Zebedee, Bradv, Cameron11598, Cohaf, Cullen328, Davey2010, Dax Bane, Doug Weller, Drmies, Guettarda, Hamster Sandwich, Hian, Jeske Couriano, JzG, LakesideMiners, Miniapolis, Mrschimpf, Mz7, NinjaRobotPirate, Krenair, Oshwah, Praxidicae, PlyrStar93, Rschen7754, Saederup92, Sandstein, StraussInTheHouse, stjn, stwalkerster, TheMesquito, TheSandDoctor, TonyBalloni, TropicalKitty, Vermont, and Winged Blades of Godric.

>>332403 I'm kinda amazed to see wikipedia pull their usual shenanigans in a way I'd consider "right-wing" (ie anti-homosexuality) when they usually do it to push far-left viewpoints. Still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Censorship is censorship.

Related to >>332222 there was more than one person banned from the Cape Town event. > THE over-eager and misguided official who banned me from Wikimania Cape Town for allegedly ‘disrupting a pre-event on ‘Decolonising the Internet’ and also for ‘disrupting an event in Tunisia’, (both events which I never attended) is no longer at Wikimedia. https://medialternatives.com/2019/01/15/wikimedia-james-alexander-youre-out/ James Alexander was let go for no stated reason. Like all SanFranBans, they made him an unperson and aren't saying why.

Iamveselin blocked 72hrs by Bbb23 with threatened indef after a report by JDC808… > So lets get this straight, an editor has been blocked for not responding to (from looking at their talkpage) false accusations of vandalism when they were adding unobjectionable (in the, its not uncited and its not a BLP violation sense) material to an article, and someone threatening to report them (as they have done) for not using the right type of dash? What the fuck is this "Bully people off wikipedia" month? The correct way to respond to people making unreasonable demands is to ignore them. An editor is not required to kowtow to the em-dash mafia. Jesus Christ. Next time someone has a go about dashes, I think the only response needed will be 'fuck off'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=879597935&oldid=879583305#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Iamveselin

Hey Wikipedia guy, 090301, this Ser Amantio di Nicolao guy who's in the news right now, was he involved in any wikipedia fuckery, or is he clean?. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao

Alex Shih accused of abusing checkuser tools https://thewikicabal.com/2019/02/07/the-character-assassination-of-alex-shih/

The Kingfisher questions whether Hope Not Hate is a reliable source, but his comments are struck out by Nableezy as a confirmed sock. Let's see what really happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:For_Britain#Is_Hope_Not_Hate_considered_a_reliable_source? The Kingfisher took Nableezy to AE for battleground editing, particularly "accusing every new editor who opposes him of being a NoCal sock." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=881417436&oldid=881416940#Nableezy Nableezy reported The Kingfisher to SPI as a sock of NoCal100. Bbb23 found the technical evidence "less than likely" but banned TheKingfisher anyways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive#01_February_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Kingfisher#February_2019 Bbb23 then sat on the appeals queue to prevent any other admin from reading The Kingfisher's appeals. > Please do not send me any more e-mail. Thanks.–Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

On Talk:Homosexuality, Inowen raised the issue of whether child abuse is a contributing factor to homosexuality in adulthood. > On the matter of scientific studies of causal factors such as sexual abuse in youth? > "Adolescent boys, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than peers who had not been abused." -William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D., Journal of the American Medical Association 1998.ref > Also should be noted are non-sexual forms of abuse such as violence in the home as contributing to homosexuality, not just sexual abuse.-Inowen (nlfte) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC) That "ref" was not a reference to the AMA article but to Conservapedia. This is a problem because it shows that Inowen did not read the actual AMA article to confirm the quote, but Wikipedia only cares because Inowen reads Conservapedia. EvergreenFir swiftly reported Inowen to ANI for holding "strong and rather extreme beliefs". Iridescent called out Inowen for proposing "a particular ultra-crank theory" that the British monarchy opposed Brexit and attempted to influence American opinion on the matter, like all governments do. EEng ridiculed "his crackpot comments" and accused him of hating the Jews. Nil Einne added "they're still pushing their fantasy world about how the queen has hacked the UN and is trying to destroy America and wikipedia via defamation law or something." The editors found in several instances that Inowen had a history of soapboxing without citing sources and of creating Wikipedia pages for his political opinions, which was enough to justify an indefinite ban by community consensus. The behavior of the Wikipedia regulars, in casting aspersions and soapboxing and showing bias on their part, was not questioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality&diff=882411778&oldid=882411694#Studies_of_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=882742774&oldid=882742666#POV,_WP:TEND,_and_other_issues_with_Inodwen

Radio host Mark Dice wanted to make his Wikipedia page more promotional and somehow got Jimmy Wales to support him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Dice TonyBallioni jumped into the page to denounce Dice as "a conspiracy theorist with a Twitter following," drawing this response from Wales: > I think you should permanently refrain from editing this entry and leave it to those who are more neutral.–Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC) TonyBalloni's friends jump in to support his personal attacks against Dice, who was another Wikipedia editor in the thread at the time. > I think TonyBallioni brings objectivity and wisdom to this discussion, and I would encourage him to continue editing, rather than to abstain. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC) > Me too. I think Jimbo Wales should permanently refrain from attempting to throw shade at our best admins. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC). > Me three. Jimbo Wales, I'm surprised to see you claim that admin X is not neutral and "just doesn't like the subject"–we hear that bogus argument all the time in AfD discussions, for instance. Slatersteven, wut? Whoever you were patronizing, the other party doesn't need your help, I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Mark Dice bitched about it on his youtube channel, so Ian.thomson blocked him and threatened to block any new editor who appeared to the talk page. Veteran (2007) editor Planetary Chaos Redux came back from a four year absense to say "I'm seeing a lot of bias, bad faith within Wikipedia editors" so Ian.thomson indeffed him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Planetary_Chaos_Redux Iridescent and TonyBalloni are now talking about having Jimmy Wales site-banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent#For_ye_fellow_lovers_of_Jimmy_Wales

"Wikipedia long ago became an insular, closed system that only those with precisely the right attitude could participate in." - Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1096225541449891841 https://archive.is/cOlCV

Luciusfoxx suggested moving the information about author/activist Dinesh D'Souza's felony for a campaign finance violation from the lede of his biography to elsewhere in the page, arguing that it was a relatively minor incident and he was pardoned for it. It's like the time one of the Wikipedians wanted to describe Tom Brady as a sex harasser and not a football player, except it got into the page this time. MjolnirPants responded with arguments such as "fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube," so Luciusfoxx reported MjolnirPants to ANI. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=884315948&oldid=884314844#User:MPants_at_work_reported_by_User:Luciusfoxx_for_severe_Personal_Attacks_and_threats Pudeo noted that MjolnirPants had agreed to be civil in a past ANI, so Floquenbeam indeffed Luciusfoxx with a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry that was suggested by Volunteer Marek and endorsed by Rhododendrites and SerialNumber54129. Drmies denied his appeal and Bishonen revoked his talk page access. Calton accused Pudeo of having "aiding and abetted" a sockpuppet. Cullen328 came out of left field and blocked MjolnirPants for one day. Nil Einne, Snow_Rise, Dlohcierekimb, and Davey2010 endorsed the block. Lourdes, Swarm, and Tornado chaser argued for an extension to indef. Objective3000 endorsed both blocks. Other users started to look into MjolnirPants's behavior. Smccandlish reported his EditNotice page https://archive.is/9myUL to MfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice Jwray reported MjolnirPants's WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS page that calls every social scientist in the world a Nazi and says they should be banned from Wikipedia. The page was endorsed by Legacypac, Dlohcierekim, Rhododendrites, Johnuniq, TonyBallioni, and Boing! said Zebedee. PeterTheFourth accused Jwray of being a Nazi for having complained two weeks earlier about "a cesspit of liberal bias." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MjolnirPants/nonazis Legacypac reported Jwray back to ANI where Dlohcierekim, TonyBallioni, Ivanvector, and Boing! said Zebedee all agreed that Jwray was a Nazi. TonyBallioni gave him a discretionary sanction warning so that any admin would be justified banning him on sight the next time he edits in political articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=884315948&oldid=884314844#Jwray

Jewish groups accused Ilhan Omar of using antisemitic tropes, so there is a concerted effort on her page to scrub it down from "accusations of antisemitism" to a "controversial remarks" section that makes clear that "Donald Trump … was accused of using Jewish stereotypes and anti-Semitic imagery during his presidential campaign." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilhan_Omar&diff=884570740&oldid=884485802 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ilhan_Omar When Wikieditor19920 noted that her own party leader Nancy Pelosi had condemned Omar, Wikipedians respond… > What's the basis for the claim that this is a "prominent" controversy? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC) > This is a complicated issue, and it needs to be properly described in the body of page. There are many different views about it. See, for example, Ilhan Omar is right about the influence of the Israel lobby. [links to The Guardian] … My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC) > My very best wishes, thank you for removing that. There is no consensus for including it, and the arguments here are lousy. … Drmies (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC) > @Wikieditor19920: to be frank, I think that you're adopting a strategy of gish gallop here that borders on disruptive. … Nblund talk 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC) When Wikieditor19920 and Calthinus provided links to the New York Times and Times of Israel discussing Omar's controversies over a period of several years: > That link does not support in any way that there is some controversy. Much less a prominent one. nableezy - 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC) > According to numerous other sources, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Forward, Haaretz, and Vox, the latest controversy is as much about Republican leaders' hypocrisy and double standards as it is about Omar's comments… —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)) Sir Joseph, one of the site's few openly Jewish editors, takes the other extreme. > She has tweeted 100% antisemitic tweets and has been called out for it, it's PC enough to put in front allegations, but we certainly don't need to whitewash her even more by labeling it Israel lobbying. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC) > Here's Politico calling her comments antisemitic, [26] here's SE Cupp, calling her to be held accountable for her antisemitic tweets, [27], here's local Minnesota CBS affiliate TV, [28], AOL, Omar apologizes for antisemitic tweet, [29], here's one where Jewish leaders in her district had to talk to her about her cavalier attitude about antisemitism [30]. … Sir Joseph (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Ewen Douglas attempted to accuse Wikieditor19920 of hypocrisy for changing a heading in another article on Steve King, a Republican, from "Criticism by the Anti-Defamation League" to "Antisemitism controversy in 2018". Ewen Douglas then complained that someone had added "alleged" "to describe Trump supporters using anti-Semitic tropes and Steve King supporting white nationalists/supremacists" on the Ilhan Omar page. Nableezy called for Doug Weller to come in and apply 1RR to the page, then My Very Best Wishes and Nableezy reported Sir Joseph to ANEW and AE for restoring the "antisemitism" header after they had removed it. Sir Joseph was blocked 3 days for the 1RR. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=884291134&oldid=884290100#User:Sir_Joseph_reported_by_User:My_very_best_wishes_(Result:_wrong_venue) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=884540508&oldid=884534120#Sir_Joseph Nableezy then reported Sir Joseph to AE. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=884540508&oldid=884534120#Sir_Joseph Volunteer Marek jumped in to drop links to every time on Sir Joseph's talk page history where he was accused of violating 1RR and say that Sir Joseph was guily every time, including one time when Bishonen defended Sir Joseph. > Sir Joseph routinely violates WP:1RR on controversial articles under that restriction, then tries to WP:GAME the rules by claiming it's not actually a revert or whatever other "exception" he can invent for himself [34] [35] [36] [37] (just a few). This is a pattern.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_6#Careful_about_that_1RR_rule > That is indeed not how it works, PPX. A single revert can't violate the 1RR rule, no matter how many previous edits it reverts. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC). (… part 1 of 2…)

Sir Joseph asked Dlohcierekim to impose a one-way interaction ban on Marek for casting aspersions. > I don't want to open a whole AE action or post to ANI since that is a whole drama fest. I do want this resolved and I would like a one way IBAN since he has been gunning for me for a while, he brought an AE action against me a while back that got shot down. But can you please warn him or do something about the aspersions? Saying that 1RR doesn't apply to a page that 1RR doesn't apply to is not gaming the system. Thanks.Sir Joseph (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC) > @Sir Joseph: Sorry no. You and @Volunteer Marek: need to take this to ANI. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC) > Combatants are urged to carry on at ANI. Sabres at dawn at 10 paces, I think. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC) title=User_talk:Dlohcierekim&diff=884445194&oldid=884417529#Civility_and_casting_aspersions At Dlohcierekim's insistence, Sir Joseph reported Volunteer Marek to ANI. Dlohcierekim responds… > I'm sorry, this is just an impression, but coming to my talk as you did could lead one to feel you might be attempting to game the system … Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC) > As this is all discussable at AE, that's the place to discuss it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Fish+Karate pretends to be neutral at ANI and tells him that he would have gotten a fair hearing at AE. > All you need to say is, within your AE section, "I object to the representation of my edits as "gaming 1RR" by Volunteer Marek and note that no evidence provided supports this". That's it. It will be read… Fish+Karate 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC) … while back at AE we see that Sir Joseph had complained about it there, was ignored by every admin present, and we also see this: > No real comment on the AE enforcement, I don't think there's enough here to justify a block, but to note that Sir Joseph has gone to AN/I and requested a one-way interaction ban be imposed on Volunteer Marek for casting aspersions (note that if he'd also used the term hounding we would have had an ANI complaint bingo). I think that is not a helpful thing to do. Fish+Karate 10:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC) So we had two admins, Dlohcierekim and Fish+Karate, trolling a user and ANI for reporting that Volunteer Marek was falsifying diffs. Both of them acted like Sir Joseph was terribly wrong to go to ANI when they had told him to go there, and both of them acted like Sir Joseph's incomplete ANI report was not worth responding to other than with a boomerang when both of them had seen everything and knew exactly what was going on, and anyone could go to AE and see for themselves.

>>332682 Broken/missing links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Civility_and_casting_aspersions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=884547579&oldid=884544250#Volunteer_Marek_casting_aspersions

The MjolnirPants drama >>332678 continues! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MjolnirPants&diff=884466051&oldid=884465173 Roxy the Dog repeats earlier >>330645 support for uncivil comments: > I have every sympathy with your position … -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Cullen328 threatens to indef Guy Macon as a troll for saying that the personal attack that Cullen328 blocked MjolnirPants was a personal attack that deserved a block. > … "fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube"[1] really did deserve a block in the range of one day to one week. Wait out your block and then dial back on the personal attacks. –Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC) > > The fact that I am responding to you shows that I do not believe that you are an irredeemable troll, but rather an editor who needs to change their behavior, and I sincerely hope that you will do so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl extended the block to one week after MjolnirPants cussed out Cullen328 in his unblock request. > There is a clear consensus at ANI that this sweary personal attack stuff has to stop. Your use of a sweary personal attack as a request to lift a block for a sweary personal attack shows that the problem has not been resolved. –BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Leading to immediate demands that MjolnirPants be unblocked and BrownHairedGirl lose her admin bit. > Wow, way to escalate! Add my hand to the unblock showing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC) > Me also. ——SerialNumber54129 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) > BrownHairedGirl, I tried to stay out of this mess, but this block is absolutely ridiculous… Nihlus 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) > This is seriously showing a lack of judgment on your part. Nihlus 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC) MjolnirPants said something that needed to be oversighted and was indeffed by Ivanvector and TonyBalloni. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MjolnirPants&diff=884684179&oldid=884674993 Bishonen threatens Leaky Cauldron. > The way you have ALL behaved here in the last hour or so is actually a disgrace. You should all take yourselves off to ANI. Just remember the guy who's page this actually is probably watching. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC) > > And you are actually trolling, Leaky caldron. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC). And Pokerplayer513 comes in to praise Mjolnirpants and condemn Luciusfoxx. The ban against you was unjust. You being upset at blatant pov pushing and a condescending attitude is understandable. That guy was an obvious sock. Get back to editing soon. - Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an RFC over whether to consider the Daily Caller a reliable source. Let's see how it goes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258#RfC:_The_Daily_Caller > 4 [shifi] $ A personal preference for facts over personal profit. cygnis insignis 12:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 for the issues regarding preference for profit over fact, for the issues of the obvious extreme right skew and for bordering on WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS territory tbh. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 I can't think of a specific case where having this as a source is worth the trouble it's caused and will probably continue to cause. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 based on the usual source [https://www.adfontesmedia.com/, a 1-person blog] … the core issue is the usual right wing bubble problem of positive feedback and ideology being given greater precedence than factual accuracy. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 Not quite as loopy as Infowars or Worldtruth, but their bias is massive and their lack of respect for accuracy not far behind. This is one of those sites that makes me wonder why we're always selecting out the Daily Mail for criticism and letting these even worse ones through. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 The Daily Caller is hot garbage. See below. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 If it wasn't enough before, their story about a nude selfie of a new member of Congress they don't like, that was fake, convinced me to !vote. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC) > > @Objective3000, At what point was that story unreliable?… was it their initial version that reported how other people (not them) thought the photo was real… or was it the subsequent (clarified) version where they explicitly make it clear that the photo is fake? Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 - Highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 I thought it was obvious that this website is extremely unreliable due to its unmitigated devotion to being unethical and flat-out lying. Somehow they make Fox News seem reasonable and measured. Trillfendi (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 Pretty much the antithesis of a reliable source. Their extreme and unabashed political slant aside, it's not a great sign when most of the article about them is devoted to well-sourced instances where they deliberately published falsehoods. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC) > Option 4, or, failing that, option 3. They clearly present intentionally false and misleading stories; the only real question is whether people are actually trying to cite them enough to make the red tape of overt depreciation necessary. Personally, I've noticed a recent uptick in people trying to cite them, which suggests that sort of measure might be needed. –Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 Racist, white supremacist, science-denialist publication that churns out outright false or intentionally misleading information to smear opposing movements and public figures. … Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC) > Option 3 or 4: Looks like they have a history of fabricating stories and just reading through their articles makes their reliability appear questionable.—-ZiaLater (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC) > Option 4 – I acknowledge that I tend to be on the harsher side regarding what I see as systematically problematic sources, but really, the Daily Caller has had many strikes, and they are out. What sort of professional outlet with any sense of dignity or ethics (or even a pretension of them?) posts fake nudes of a female politician [[9]], and then when they are easily demonstrably fakes? … –Calthinus (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC) > Option 4: Ample evidence to justify this. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Based on the strength of all of this amateur name-calling with very little evidence, > There is an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. … Drmies (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC) This is a rigged vote.

SMcCandlish reported Beyond My Ken to ANI for edit warring images again >>332381 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=886617016&oldid=886616775#Proposed_image-placement_topic_ban_for_Beyond_My_Ken BMK's behavior was defended by Legacypac and Fram who called for a boomerang against SMcCandlish, Nihlus who threatened one, Tsumikiria, Miniapolis, and Grandpallama who claims this report is part of a conspiracy. > BMK is a highly respected and productive member of the community, and I'm distressed that this seems like the latest in a series of ANI reports that target some of the best on WP and result in their being driven from the project. Grandpallama (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Black Kite misses the point. > Oppose We don't topic-ban people on the basis of their previous block log, unless those blocks were directly related to the topic in hand. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC) The report was supported by Softlavender, Mackenson, Lourdes, Laszlo Panaflex, and a few other. > BMK's bullying around image placement has got to stop, just like his bullying behaviors in other areas that have been much-discussed in the past. Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Nil Einne voted "strongest possible support" for a sanction. > It's clear from BMK's responses that they don't really care that their changes which offer no real improvement do cause genuine and clear negatives for others so AGF is no longer needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)07:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC) In the end, BMK again gets away without a sanction for behavior that would have gotten any IP newbie banned as a vandal. > There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken: > BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible. > When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision. > Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It is widely stated that professor Trent Schroyer of the Frankfurt School invented the phrase Cultural Marxism in 1973, although I could not find a copy of the book to confirm this. Jobrot and two IPs say that Trent Schroyer recently passed away and posted his obituary, unsourced, on the Frankfurt School talk page. El_C blocked Jobrot and edit warred to remove the information. Swarm threatened the IPs with blocks, and Acroterion and RickInBaltimore blocked the IPs for reporting El_C to ANI and saying that El_C was breaking the rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=894298883&oldid=894297305#El_C_unilaterial_action,_to_stop_discussion_and_consensus_form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobrot#Warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.220.150.46 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:14.203.75.52 > Good work declaring my friend Trent still alive - you fucking moron. –Jobrot (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC) > This is an admin conducting straightforward policy enforcement, specifically WP:TALKNO, WP:FORUM, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. … ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Aron Manning got into an edit dispute with Marc Lacoste and Andrewgprout over whether or not to include a primary source from Boeing in an article on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. He reported them to ANI at 05:21, 26 May 2019 for using the revert button and making threats instead of debating, and noted a previous instance of Marc Lacoste edit warring. Marc Lacoste went forum shopping and opened a separate 3RR report against Aron Manning at 14:59, 26 May 2019. El_C saw Marc's report, blocked Aron for a day, and then closed the ANI report as redundant. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=898914419&oldid=898911658#Marc_Lacoste,_Andrewgprout:_multiple_repeated_reverts_that_resulted_in_page_protection,_then_continued_on_related_page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=898914615&oldid=898910993#User:Aron_Manning_reported_by_User:Marc_Lacoste_(Result:_24_hours) Aron understandably objected to having been blocked without the blocker having read or responded to his report, to which El_C reponds: > No, I will not reopen the ANI request, which I admit freely I did not review as it seriously lacked concision. All these walls of texts are too much. Nobody has time to read all that. … El_C 21:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC) > I kindly ask you to be impartial, and do a proper review of both parties in these edit wars. It takes two to tango, and they invited me to the dance. Thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 21:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC) > Sorry, but I'm not inclined to do so at this time. … El_C 21:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Aron's ANI report was very concise, reporting three incidents with a simple timeline and no more than two paragraphs of explanatory text under each incident. BBB23 rejected Aron's block appeal with a standard template, showing that he had not read anything about the case either, and revoked Aron's talk page access when he continued arguing. Ironically, Bbb23 did so immediately after Aron offered to retract his statements if he was doing anything wrong. > I'm sorry I did not find any policy in the sea of guidelines saying I shouldn't be using this page for any other purpose, or that I can't ask for help from others. If there is one, please cite the proper policy, and I shall remove my request for help. Thank you for your "help". Cheers. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 12:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC) El_C, to his credit, did reopen the ANI report, but no one has responded to it by this time.

Sinuthius reported Grayfell for breaking BLP by adding false and derogatory information to the biography of ecologist Michael A. Woodley, apparently to smear the man for attending an academic conference where eugenics was discussed in 2 of the 75 presentations. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=899453006 An IP claimed that Grayfell had previously caused biochemisist Gerhard Meisenberg to lose his job after changing the text "A commentary by Meisenberg published in Nature argued that the nature-nurture controversy is becoming irrelevant because genes can now be manipulated as easily as environments" to "a letter Meisenberg sent to Nature advocated for eugenics". Pudeo notes the high degree of interactions between Grayfell and "self-declared Gamergate SPA" PeterTheFourth. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=PeterTheFourth&users=Grayfell&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki Beyond My Ken and NorthBySouthBaranof immediately call for sanctions on Pudeo for noting the existence of their off-site coordination, while El_C threatens him for "casting aspersions". Sandstein replies to the BLP concerns that have allegedly cost one professor their job already: > this looks primarily like a content dispute to me, which is not for AE to resolve. Sandstein 21:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Swarm, EdJohnston, and El_C decide to close with no action because a notice to Grayfell that the page was under discretionary sanctions had failed to state the specific case, but had referred Grayfell to the top of the talk page. There is no way that they can seriously believe Grayfell to be unaware of the race and intelligence sanctions.

Malik Shabazz earned a 3-day block for yet another round of abusive behavior. Nableezy, Cullen328, and Doug Weller were so outraged that they went to his talk page to protest the block and praise him as the kind of editor Wikipedia needs, while Piotrus gave him a barnstar. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malik_Shabazz&diff=899987890&oldid=899978676#Block

Fram denounced ArbCom for abusing its authority… > Fuck ArbCom which doesn't even understand their own messages and again give themselves powers they don't have. First it was deletions, then it was mandatory 2FA, inbetween it is loads of evidence of utter incompetence in many of its members (witness the statement by AGK above, but also some of the comments at e.g. the Rama case request). Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something within your remit, but don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so. Or collectively resign. But don't give us any more of this bullshit. Fram (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) So the WMF abused its authority to ban Fram from English Wikipedia for a year, and they never told the community why they did it. The admins are justifiably angry about this. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fram&oldid=353945503#Seeing_as_you're_not_banned_here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Notice:_WMF_desysop_of_Floquenbeam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARC#WJBscribe

>>332767 cont'd. Aron Manning was indeffed by Bbb23 for "bludgeoning" for listing debate opponents' arguments as logically sound or unsound in a move review. That was not very nice but technically he was following the rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=901717751&oldid=901715597&title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2019_June&type=revision&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aron_Manning&oldid=902334172#Conduct_at_Boeing_737_MAX_MR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aron_Manning His appeal was denied by NinjaRobotPirate for sockpuppetry because he had an alternative account that he had used recently. Aron had claimed "I haven't used another account for a long time" which was proven untrue, but it was not shown that he had used the accounts to violate policy. When Aron asked if the block followed policy, Bbb23 revoked his talk page access.

Wulumbo reported Beyond My Ken to the Edit Warring board for making five reverts to the Ben Shapiro page on July 5. Cygnus Insignus threatened wulumbo with a boomerang and Bbb23 closed the report as "stale" after eleven minutes. The oldest of the five reverts was from one day earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=905054425&oldid=905054079 https://archive.is/NUkDB Wulumbo then went to ANI to ask for "a long term solution" due to BMK's history of edit warring. Thomas.W threatened Wulumbo with a boomerang. MarnetteD threatened a boomerang for forum shopping, and Davey2010 closed out the report before someone could punish Wulumbo for reporting that BMK had been breaking the rules again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=905068844&oldid=905068573#Beyond_My_Ken

The account SNAAAAKE!!, formerly Niemti, has been blocked several times for combative behavior and was unblocked in May 2018. They lasted one year before being blocked again for breaking a 1RR restriction and refusing to apologize. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASNAAAAKE%21%21 Damien Linnane collected evidence to seek a longer block, and what will interest this board is that part of his evidence was that Snake was part of Gamergate. Bryn and Jorm supported this as a reason to get rid of him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=905109517#Topic_bans_against_SNAAAAKE!!

Snooganssnoogans obtained consensus for this statement in the lede of the Wall Street journal article: > The Journal editorial board has promoted fringe views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal&diff=899906192&oldid=899115971#RfC:_WSJ_editorial_board's_promotion_of_fringe_science Atsme is complaining on NPOVN. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=903128172&oldid=903124833#Exceptional_claim_about_the_WSJ

Partytemple reported Flyer22 for flagrant and repeated personal attacks. Bbb23 closed the report after four hours for "nothing more to see here". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=907028286&oldid=907027281#Flyer22_Reborn:_incivility,_personal_attacks

Snooganssnoogans has been whitewashing the article for MS-13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_76#MS-13

>>332801 I tried fixing the POV-pushing by Snooganssnoogans in several articles with very reliable sources, not newspapers or blogs but technical papers from respected, mainstream sources with empirical data, and got blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is a propaganda machine.

BatteryIncluded ally, Koncorde is at it, acting much like Trump supporters did, all but confirmed that he is part of Gamergate much like Redditor JustARandommer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koncorde#A_shit_mod_for_an_old_game,_based_on_a_movie_IP_only_Bryan_cares_about

>>332809 I got blocked.

Wikipedia user Koncorde is at it again. This time attacking Rekt Galaxies. This has to stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koncorde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rowan_Forest https://www.red*dit.com/r/JustARandommer Koncorde, BatteryIncluded and JustARandommer are part of GamerGate, which led to Trump and Brexit. The wiki war happened just after Phobos-Grunt failed and crashed in 2012.

The Starkiller88 drama continues, with Koncorde updating his userpage. It is apparent that BatteryIncluded (now known as Rowan Forest) is at the center. Covid-19 and Fram-gate haven't changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koncorde #StopTheKoncorde

Look at what I've got. These images about Drmies' administrative CheckUser action shows that there's a Trumpian sentiment. It proves that BatteryIncluded and Koncorde, as well as the Wikipedia community is responsible for Gamergate, Trump and Brexit.

Since he started contributing to Wikipedia and using the Internet, many people have long speculated his true intentions. Some of them say that Koncorde is a Russian agent, sent to undermine Western institutions for Vladimir Putin. Time to call Koncorde the Kremlin Koncorde, the Britain BatteryIncluded and Britain JustArandommer because he documents bans for the Kremlin to see. Tell the Kremlin. Tell Putin about Koncorde.

Boing! said Zebedee is back to IP blocking, this time on behalf of Koncorde AKA Britain BatteryIncluded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#Bryan_See,_harassment_over_on_Indonesian_Wikipedia