Slatersteven took The Quixotic Potato to ANI for insulting someone at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) talk page. TQP responded to everyone with the the usual smug admin "I'm so great" attitude, but the normies showed up before his friends did and he came out looking bad. Highlights include implying that MjolnirPants is racist against Dutch people for saying he broke WP:CIVIL, calling admin Oswah a newbie who would never make it through RfA, responding to comments with "lol", and opening a retaliatory ANI thread against his accuser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:The_Quixotic_Potato

Floquenbeam indeffed Soham321 ‎for requesting that Bishonen be desysopped. This is, apparently, "battleground conduct." As Stuka puts it: "Soham321 was hanged, drawn, and quartered after climbing the Reichstag at AE" https://np.red*dit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/5l7yvo/soham321_was_hanged_drawn_and_quartered_after/ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=757516265#Ms_Sarah_Welch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#December_2016

>>329217 Bishonen has rev del'd some of Soham321's talk page and removed his talk page access. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3ASoham321 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soham321&oldid=757638691#Disillusioned_by_your_block

>>329218 > Bishonen has rev del'd some of Soham321's talk page and removed his talk page access. I missed whatever was revdel'd but someone also modified Soham's comment in the database or else we would see the original text and not "redacted" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soham321&diff=757613079&oldid=757611969 That was where Soham had copied in some of The Dark Knight's insults from Wikipedia Sucks. They were mostly directed towards Floq, some towards Wikipedia as a whole. http://wikipediasucks.boards.net/thread/438/finally-got-indeffed Questions that this raises: 1. When this was at AE, Soham had called for Bish to lose admin rights. That makes Bish involved. Is it proper for Bish to have used tools in this case? 2. Is this a proper use of revdel? 3. Is this a proper use of the database? BLP could be said to apply to the insults against Floq, but not to the insult against Wikipedia as a whole. 4. Was it proper to revoke talk page access? 5. Is this a valid case for IAR? Some of it? All of it? Should the admins ignore the rules in their own use of the tools?

How Not To Do PR At Jimbo's talk page someone is demanding that Jimbo personally create a page for Igor Janev, whose page was deleted in 2012. Deletion log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Igor+Janev The first request was ignored, so they keep coming back with with an endless number of new IPs to make the same request, and people keep deleting them as spam. Their latest persuasion technique is to declare Jimbo an enemy of the Republic of Macedonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=757774555&oldid=757774061

Correction to >>329222 It is possible that Soham321 "redacted" the comments himself and no one edited the database directly. The Dark Knight suggests this is the case. http://wikipediasucks.boards.net/thread/438/finally-got-indeffed?page=2

There is a huge debate at Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent over whether Jews should be considered to be of Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian descent. Well, duh. Right? It should be an easy question but this is Wikipedia so there must be drama, and because this is a Middle East conflict it is going to last forever. 2013 Evildoer187 added the Southwest Asian and Middle Eastern categories on 6 and 18 December 2012. Debresser removed them on 30 September 2013. The first edit war flared up in November 2013 after IPs added and removed categories. Debresser removed the Southwest Asian category without an explanation and edit warred with Evildoer187 over it until Evildoer187 gave up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:People_of_Jewish_descent&offset=&limit=500&action=history 2014 Evildoer187 came back in February 2014 to restore the Southwest Asian category and open a discussion on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Middle_Eastern.2FSouthwest_Asian_descent Nishidani stands against the obvious on the grounds that foreigners can join the Jewish tribe by converting. When the other editors point out that you can say the same about any group that has outsiders marry into them, Nishidani repeats his position over and over and goes on to question the others' competence, wrongly claim that "most Jews are Ashkenazi," complain about the "walls of text" of people citing evidence against his position, recommend a "peer reviewed" Palestinian researcher whose tenure hearing was a public controversy, and accuse the others of "hasbara memes." Debresser joins Nishidani's side accusing other editors of edit warring and violating consensus by disagreeing with him and Nishidani. When he gets around to making a point, it is to claim that "Disregarding those Jews who are from the Middle East in the last generation or 2 or 3, no Jew would says he is of Middle eastern descent…" Both Debresser and Nishidani have dropped hints like this that they want the Jews out of the Middle Eastern category because knowledge of the Jews' historic origin in the Middle East could lead Wikipedia's readers to support Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yambaram posted a long point-by-point summary of debate the and declared victory for the Keep side, but Liz halted him on procedural grounds. > No, that's not how it works. A talk page conversation between 5 or 6 editors doesn't determine the basis of categorization of such a widely used category as "of descent". This disagreement needs to be the subject of an RFC or Dispute Resolution case. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Debresser followed up Liz by declaring "no consensus" and therefore victory for the Delete side. Nishidani reported Evildoer187 to ANI and got him topic banned from all articles dealing with Judaism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Evildoer_at_Ashkenazi_Jews._Repeated_disruptive_POV_pushing_over_an_extended_period_on_a_single_issue Liz removed the Middle Eastern category on 9 May 2014, causing another edit war in which Ubikwit joined Nishidani and Debresser. Ubikwit had previously reported Evildoer187 to ANI for having the view that "Israel should not be included on the list of European colonial states." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#Evildoer187:_violation_of_policy_WP:TPG_and_WP:DISRUPT.2C_failure_or_refusal_to_.E2.80.9Cget_the_point.E2.80.9D.2C_tendentious_editing A since-vanished user noted that the Middle Eastern category "was here since late 2012, and was removed only in February. There is no consensus for removing the category." Nishidani, Debresser, and Ubikwit continued edit warring to keep it out. (continued in next post…)

2016 The edit war restarted in April 2016 after editors from the page for American people of Jewish descent noticed that Debresser was still edit warring the Middle Eastern category here when they had come to a consensus with Debresser for inclusion on their page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:American_people_of_Jewish_descent#Americans_of_Southwest_Asian_Descent Electoralist, a newcomer to the edit war, POINTily tried to add in categories for European and African descent because many converts are not native to the Middle East. Debresser continued edit warring through September and took to the talk page to start another gigantic thread by telling another succession of Jews that they do not know their own history. Jews from Germany call themselves German Jews meaning they come from both Germany (Europe) and Judea (the Middle E… oh, forget it, just ignore the "Jews" part). By the same logic African-Americans might be surprised to learn that their ancestors did not come from Africa. Debresser picks up an unexpected supporter in Sir Joseph who repeats the argument about converts. Bus stop and Robert McClenon join in on the same side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Middle_East_category_Rfc After pro-Keep editor Bubbecraft accused Debresser of filibustering, McClenon taunted Bubbecraft with his own words. > I would like to recommend this RFC be withdrawn and reformulated because the RFC doesn't ask a question thereby encouraging lengthy argument. The original posts are too long, difficult to follow and may be construed as having something of the nature of a filibuster. Bubbecraft (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC) > I agree that Bubbecraft's posts are too long, difficult to read, and they are what I characterized as a filibuster… Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Bus stop shows his opposition is all about taking sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, repeating this question four times while ignoring Jeffgr9's responses. > Would a nonobservant Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel be "predominantly Middle Eastern"? Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Finally Bubbecraft opened a vote. Eggishorn, a previously uninvolved editor, closed it in favor of keep based on the "strength of reference sources and policy-based arguments." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Survey 2017 Sir Joseph complained about the non-admin closure at AN and, with Bus Stop, demanded that Eggishorn present sources for the Keep opinion. Only In Death called them out for relitigating the case at AN and told them to STFU, while Jbhunley joined their cause and called for the decision to be overturned. This is still ongoing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_Closure_review_Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent.23Survey

>>329274 >>329275 Jews are from Somalia and still technically belong to Egypt based on totally legit sources. *boom* done. I've fixed wikipedia.

>>329291 The Jews were slaves in Egypt. Egypt probably still has the receipts stored away in one of the pyramids.

About those reliable sources that Wikipedia loves so much… The Washington Post's Express magazine did a story about a womens' march to oppose Trump. They illustrated it with the universally recognized Mars (male) symbol. How did this happen? The best guess is that no one knew what the Venus (female) symbol looked like so they googled it and came up with a computer-generated infobox built from a Wikipedia page that told them the male symbol was the female symbol. They did not bother to click through to the Wikipedia page. https://twitter.com/WaPoExpress/status/817010323978907648 https://archive.is/RCjfV This went through editing and no one saw a problem with it. This is the quality of research and fact-checking performed by "reliable sources" these days. Remember Arbcomgate.

Acupuncture Kashmiri reported Jytdog and Alexbrn to ANI for making threats and acting like they owned the page for Meridian (Chinese medicine). Jytdog has gone from "protecting" science articles to inserting his opinion into acupuncture pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unacceptable.3F This was predicted by that IP that Bishonen banned for calling them out for banning people for their opinions. The IP also reads "the offsite complaint boards." Hi IP! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=751960843 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=751976624 A typical edit is Alexbrn scrubbing Chinese sources as "woo" in favor of a skeptic website. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meridian_(Chinese_medicine)&diff=758285637&oldid=758285551 Mr Ernie quickly agrees that Kashmiri is "promoting fringe theories." Jytdog came forth with a prepared litany of reasons why Kashmiri is not here to build an encyclopedia: * Kashmiri quoted one author's opinion to the author and not to "scientific consensus!" * Kashmiri describes acupuncture's concept of a meridian system as a "concept" rather than a "belief!" * Kashmiri has added numerous small details to medicine pages without citing additional sources! (someone would need to see if the existing references include these details to know if this complaint has merit.) It is clear that the evidence against Kashmiri is not necessarily evidence of wrongdoing. Jytdog is throwing crap at Kashmiri and hoping some of it sticks. As usual, Jytdog's meatpuppet Kingofaces43 shows up to insist once again that Jytdog is perfect and Jytdog's target of the day is WP:NOTHERE. Kingofaces43 calls for a close with no action, seconded by Timothyjosephwood. South Beach Diet In a different thread that is also at ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#South_Beach_Diet_redux > As I mentioned above, Jytdog and Alexbrn have used threats of administrative action, repeatedly, to assert ownership over the subject. This was just another example of this. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Anmccaff claims to have caught Jytdog and Alexbrn misrepresenting a source and edit warring to reinsert it, so Jytdog and Alexbrn want Anmccaff topic-banned. Mjolnirpants claims to have read the source and calls Anmccaff's position "a bald-faced lie." Anmccaff quotes from the source to support his position. Bishonen rushes to call for an indefinite block of Anmccaff, followed by QuackGuru, JzG, Beyond My Ken, and Johnuniq supporting a topic ban. When another editor added a dispute tag to the page, Jytdog and JzG opened a new Talk section demanding to know what that editor was doing in their article. JzG denounced Anmccaff as a "believer in bullshit" and Mjolnirpants compared the credibility of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health to that of Donald Trump's twitter account. Meanwhile at Acupuncture, Jytdog will cite the website of an activist group. The group has a good reputation, but it is not MEDRS. If there are standards, they are not being applied evenly.

>>329294 continued > @Ivanvector: In evidence-based medicine the assumption is that something does not work unless there is evidence to the contrary, hence a fair presentation of this content in a lay encyclopedia is negative… Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Here is your problem That attitude works when you are an insurance company deciding what you will allow doctors to prescribe to a patient. It does not work when you are building an encyclopedia and you declare things to be false that have yet to be tested thoroughly. Someone who cannot tell the difference between the false and the unknown has no business editing science articles. Good scientists will rarely make such simple declarations of truth or falsehood. Studies are usually presented in the form "Alice found this, Bob found that." Jumping the gun to declare things true or false will result in littering falsehoods throughout the encyclopedia. Medical science in particular has sometimes been found to have a low reproducability rate. https://qz.com/603356/why-scientific-studies-cant-be-reproduced/

Today at AE, nobody seems to be aware that abortion is controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Ontario_Teacher_BFA_BEd

>>329293 Surprised they didn't blame GG for this one for once, kek. >>329294 >>329319 What really takes the cake here (so to speak) is that there is a Chinese Wikipedia article on Meridian, that's clear and concise, and have all the important citations of sources. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BB%8F%E7%BB%9C The wiki editors could've just directly translated the whole thing to proper English to save themselves all the trouble, but instead they have to make up their own fiction and pretend that they're the facts instead. >>329321 Makes sense, the AE members were probably all failed abortions after all.

Wikipedia deleted the article for the political comedy site The People's Cube. The multiple appearances of the author Oleg Atbashian on talk radio programs were not considered notable or reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_People's_Cube JzG shows that his participation is more about politics than policy. > Delete. It would indeed be notable if there was an example of good, funny, right-wing satire, but the consensus appears to be that this isn't it, so has been generally ignored by the kinds of sources we require. Sadly, all right-wing satire appears to fail Poe's Law. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Karunamon reported JzG to ANI. Samtar quickly threw out the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive943 > Karunamon, you are a crazy man for trying to bring this up at ANI. Are you seriously trying to report an admin part of the core clique with dozens of Wikifriends? That's not how Wikipedia works. You will just be BOOMERANG'ed. –Pudeo (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC) > Dude, don't make comments like this. I opened this case because the facts are on my side and I fully expect them to be found in my favor. I don't share this belief that there is a "core clique" that ignores hard evidence when it's brought to them. Karunamon ✉ 01:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia's deletionists are now going after the page for Atbashian's earlier website Communists For Kerry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communists_for_Kerry The websites might not pass Wikipedia's notability rules for websites but Atbashian himself should meet GNG with his media appearances, the media references to his two websites, and his recent arrest for putting up stickers and posters at George Mason University. That is more than 1E. More fun: Atbashian has criticized Wikipedia in the past. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/145873/what-islamic-supremacism-looks-oleg-atbashian

206.255.40.218 is a new editor who has stepped on two political landmines in a row. First he went to Jimbo's talk page to complain about the lack of neutrality in the Pizzagate article. JzG and Stephan Schultz took turns deleting his comment, with JzG describing a concern for upholding Wikipedia's 5 pillars as a "pointless rant" and – while involved – blocking the IP for two days with the false accusation of "trolling". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=758282548&oldid=758281352 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=758289435&oldid=758288743 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=758291327&oldid=758291033 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=758292482&oldid=758292080 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=206.255.40.218&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1 Anthony Bradbury and Boing! said Zebedee refused the IP's unblock requests, with Bradbury repeating the false "troll" accusation and Boing claiming "all you want to do is promote blatant and damaging lies." All that the IP had done was call for a neutral presentation of the claims like in Wikipedia's other articles about conspiracy theories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:206.255.40.218 The IP took his case directly to Boing's talk page. Boing said screw the pillars, Wikipedia has a party line to follow. > There has been lengthy, often acrimonious, discussion, and the current content was decided by consensus - and the consensus was that, backed by multiple reliable sources, it did not happen - and that that's what Wikipedia should say. You need to drop this now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee&diff=758647233&oldid=758646682 The IP did not help his case by then going to Alex Jones and claiming his corporate sponsorship proves his news is not fake > Would it be worth mentioning in the opening paragraph that Jones' show has been hosted by IHeartMedia which is propriety of Bain Capital? I'm trying to avoid POV but to me this does back up the "fake news" notion of Jones' show seeing as the show is distributed by a "globalist" multi-national corporation, which seems to conflict with Jones' typical message.–206.255.40.218 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&diff=prev&oldid=758776025 Next the IP found two editors Drewmutt and KenYokai reverting Go-Busters pages to Ryulong's personal bad translation so he reported them to ANI as sockpuppets. Sergecross73 is unaware of the history here. > You're going to need a much stronger case to hypothetically prove they're Ryulong. Your examples above are hardly telltale signs that would point to him and him alone. Looking into his user page and comments, DrewMutt in particular does not really resemble Ryulong. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC) RickinBaltimore closed the case after Sergecross73 found that KenYokai had argued with Ryulong in the past, so these must be two different people.

Back in 2014 Captain Occam gave the examples of Adnan Oktar, Giovanni Di Stefano, and Richard Lynn to show that Wikipedia does not follow its BLP policy when the admins don't like the subject. http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4638 Captain Occam was recently unbanned so he brought the problem to Jimbo. Jimbo brushed it off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Articles_where_the_community_rejects_BLP_policy

Meanwhile at WikiInAction… > I'm doing a school research project about Wikipedia and would like to learn how one could edit even when their whole IP range is blocked. The literature indicates Wikipedia is effective in blocking proxies, TOR and other means. Thank you for your contribution to science. (self.WikiInAction) https://np.red*dit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/5nobgy/im_doing_a_school_research_project_about/ Hi, I'm doing a school research project to see how much toilet paper it would take to completely cover Jimbo's house. I will need a floor plan, map directions, a schedule of when Jimbo will be out, and someone to distract the guys at Costco's back loading area. It's for science.

Should Wikipedia state that Darwin never made any reference to human races when it can be proven that he did? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_the_Origin_of_Species#Meaning_of_favoured_races:_sources On the side of reality, Stan Giesbrecht has read On The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man and can quote from them. On the anti-science side, Volunteer Marek has this website he really likes. > The source, TalkOrigins, states: “Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. " … which is like claiming something refers to H2O but not water. It's the same thing. Marek is joined by Dave Souza and Johnuniq who plug their ears and say "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" while Giesbrecht outlines exactly what policies they are violating and how their excuses are evolving as he refutes them again and again. Johnuniq took Giesbrecht to ANI and quickly gained the support of Robert McClenon, Bishonen, and JzG. Bishonen blocked Giesbrecht for two weeks, calling it "certainly egregious" that an ordinary user such as Giesbrecht would call out veteran editors on their policy violations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Origin_of_Species_dispute

From SoulofThesteppe at WiA: Some admins/arbitrators say they have mental illness. Good or bad for wiki? https://www.red*dit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/5o5vw4/some_adminsarbitrators_say_they_have_mental/ This happened at Everymorning's RfA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Everymorning:_December_29.2C_2016 > Finally, you identify on your user page as someone with Asperger syndrome. While I understand Wikipedia is a magnet for people with this diagnosis I hesitate to put people with mental illness in positions of trust. I honestly don't know if anyone but me has this opinion; I doubt few would be open about it. Please rethink over-sharing on your userpage. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2017 > @Chris troutman: I am most likely on the autism spectrum (Asperger's has been deprecated as a diagnosis, fyi), and it's no more of a mental illness than your assholery. For what it's worth, I'm also actually mentally ill, as are many other editors, and we are able to contribute quite productively, thanks. I see no shame in talking about neurodivergence and neurodiversity is an important part of our community. It's incredibly inappropriate to demean other editors for being open about mental illness OR neurodivergence. There are plenty of legitimate, kind, helpful critiques for this editor. Him being open about being on the spectrum is not one of them. Keilana (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC) > After mistaking ASD for mental illness, he argued that people with mental illness should not be in positions of trust, and that they should not be open about it. As another person with mental illness, I know that I certainly find it to be demeaning. My illness does not affect my ability to edit Wikipedia, and someone so uninformed about mental illness certainly should not be making broad statements that it does. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC) > (edit conflict) @Lepricavark: It is demeaning, as being on the higher-functioning end of the Autism spectrum is not considered a mental illness by psychologists, and therefore it is demeaning. Also, considering that everyone here who is on the autism spectrum is offended by his comment, it's pretty safe to say that it is demeaning. WP:DICK definitely applies here. Wow, I'm in an edit-conflict with everyone today… and I just edit conflicted with GorillaWarfare twice when trying to add this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC) > Considering that you just (even if not intentionally) grossly insulted and was demeaning to her, I think calling you an asshole would be an acceptable response to that.. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC) > 7/10 Per Kudpung, Everymorning's a solid editor. Personally, as a person with Asperger's (or on the Autism spectrum, the terminology is complicated), I'd be happy to have another admin with Asperger's, as many people with it tend to be very intelligent. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC) > @Chris troutman and Lepricavark:, this isn't the first time Chris has been called out for his on-wiki behavior with regards to mental illness. The pattern shows that there is no "willingness to listen" on his part. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Ed is Ed Erhart / The_Ed17 who has a few dramas to his credit in the last thread. https://archive.is/RYlD1

At WiA, Niemti tells us: > I don't know if many of you guys know or heard of me, but they just posted an interview with me, and it was heavily redacted as too hot for Wikipedia. https://np.red*dit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/5qcvk3/wikipediawikiproject_video_gamesnewsletter/ Most of the redactions fall into one of two categories. 1. Niemti talking down other users. It wasn't seen as an issue when Gamaliel went after Eric Corbett in Signpost, but it should have been. This is justifiable. 2. Linking to offsite information about Gamergate. This is probably because the editor is afraid of being blocked for "BLP" for linking to accurate information about Gamergate like so many others have been. Here are the links that were removed: https://heatst.com/culture-wars/gamergates-eron-gjoni-breaks-silence-talks-about-infamous-zoe-quinn-post-five-guys-joke/ http://observer.com/2015/10/blame-gamergates-bad-rep-on-smears-and-shoddy-journalism/ https://twitter.com/draginol/status/751580498539978752 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOiXBzDmLJk#t=3m10s They also removed a line talking down the Guardian's shoddy journalism. I hear that Jimbo is on the Guardian's board these days.

InfoGalactic admin Tears of Ovid sent a nastygram to a Wikipediocracy admin, got banned from WO, and then was caught sockpuppeting as a Muslim woman on Wikipedia while demanding that Jimbo do something about it. http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8050#p198513 It is nice to see that the InfoGalactic admins are as level-headed as the Wikipedia admins, for certain values of "nice."

DrCrissy reported Kingofaces43 to AE for repeatedly taunting him with references to his GMO topic ban which he is not allowed to reply to. This violated the WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED policy as well as the basic civility policy. JzG, Sandstein, and EdJohnson declared that there is no problem with this behavior and Sandstein blocked DrCrissy for a week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Kingofaces43

Followup to >>329202 The Quixotic Potato caused enough trouble that GorillaWarfare spiked the spud for two weeks. TQP responded by attacking GorillaWarfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Quixotic_Potato&diff=758439444&oldid=758436685 > @GorillaWarfare: And how does that block protect the encyclopedia? WP:NOTPUNITIVE. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC) > This is at least the third attack on Oshwah I've seen (see the two linked warnings above). You've given no indication you'll stop doing this, and now you've moved on to disrupting other users trying to interact with him. This is absolutely preventative. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC) > Define "attack". I am simply helping a fellow Wikipedian by explaining how to get the result they want. It may prevent Oshwah getting annoyed, but it does not prevent harm to the encyclopedia, and therefore it is not allowed. You are simply trying to punish me because I disagree with Oshwah. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC) > @GorillaWarfare: Look at the damage to the encyclopedia Oshwah and yourself have already caused. My wikimood is pretty terrible. Why do you want to make it worse? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Discussion continued to Rnddude's talk page where TQP brought up the scare of an 8chan raid against the Southern Poverty Law Center page. When was this? Potato means these three comments from the last thread. >>328573 >>328574 >>329143 Slatersteven saw the mention of an 8chan raid, asked for more info, and went to ANI to warn everyone. The Quixotic Potato's aggressive-aggressive responses must be seen to be believed: > Time for a boomerang. Yet another straw man argument. Yet another false accusation. People love typing but they hate reading. Pretty much everything in the original post is incorrect. Three months ago some people from 8chan were talking about the SPLC article on an old 4chan raid channel. At the time I was using an IRC bouncer to monitor what they were up to. I requested protection. The article was protected for a while. I mentioned Archive.org and archive.is and webcitation.org on Rnddude's talkpage because I used their services to archive evidence. I have asked to OP to stop posting on my talkpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC) > Slatersteven please stop annoying me. Leave me alone. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC) > @Slatersteven I have already posted quite a lot of evidence on Wikipedia, including links to 8chan, archive.org, archive.is and webcitation.org (and screenshots on imgur)… Can you please stop talking about this stuff now? Please drop your stick, like I asked you to. If you continue talking about this subject then I will ignore you. … (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC) TQP's evidence that Motsebboh was an 8chan raider is that Motsebboh was quoted in one of our posts. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&diff=757643423&oldid=757409027

>>329846 >Time for a boomerang

wikipedo bans Daily Mail as an 'unreliable' source: http://archive.is/1i9KM >Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’ >‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’ Reported in the Guardian (see archive) For those who don't know, the Daily Mail (UK newspaper) is centre-right, and usually supports the Conservatives.

Collect has a good contribution to RSN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#On_.22fact-checking.22 > I commend editors who believe that major newspapers are paragons of accuracy to examine: > http://rrj.ca/a-checkered-present/ from 1999. > http://articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/newsweek Newsweek dismantled its fact-checking staff in 1996. > https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/14/you-cant-have-a-healthy-democracy-without-well-informed-citizens-honderich.html Do not expect Google or Facebook to fact check anything. > https://www.chapman.edu/law/_files/publications/CLR-11-davidanderson-lillianbevier-caroldarr-eugenevolokh-johnleo.pdf "Nor is it helpful to try to distinguish blogs on the grounds that they aren’t edited or fact-checked, and are thus more likely to be inaccurate. To begin with, many op-eds and newspaper columns are at most lightly edited and fact-checked, if that much. Some magazines maintain professional fact-checking staff, but most newspapers don’t." > http://www.designnine.com/news/content/news-downsizing-affects-reliability "The larger point made by Smerconish is that the pranksters behind the hoax got away with it in part because downsized news organization no longer have the staff to check this kind of stuff. In the "old days," newspapers particularly had a fact checking staff that made sure that what reporters put in their articles was actually true. " > In short, "fact checkers" other than the political ones who surface every four years, are almost extinct. Collect (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC) The missing point is that Wikipedia considers mainstream news sources and academic papers reliable because they are traditionally assumed to go through a rigorous fact-checking process. There are now few to no media that check anything beyond the question whether it can get them sued. Standards have also dropped in academia due to the rush to publish. There are few reliable sources anymore.

"Horseman of Wikibias" Travis Mason-Bushman aka disgraced former Wikipedia sysop FCYTravis/Polarscribe/NorthBySouthBaranof has had his Gamergate topic ban "terminated" by ArbCom appeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=764292049#Amendment_request:_GamerGate

>>330001 > "Horseman of Wikibias" Travis Mason-Bushman aka disgraced former Wikipedia sysop FCYTravis/Polarscribe/NorthBySouthBaranof has had his Gamergate topic ban "terminated" by ArbCom appeal. Where does he want to edit? > … A current example is Linda Sarsour - she is one of the organizers of the 2017 Women's March, and I began editing that article in good faith … NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC) At that page's Talk: > It's been pretty well-established this woman is a proponent of Sharia and tweets hate speech against former Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimic86 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC) > To the contrary, reliable sources including the Washington Post have called such claims "false." Other posts have falsely claimed that she supports the imposition of Islamic law on the U.S. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC) > For one, the addition cites and quotes several sources which are highly partisan and which do not meet reliable sourcing criteria for claims about living people, notably FrontPage Magazine, the Daily Caller and GatewayPundit… NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC) and former(?) paid editor Missvain is involved: > I've upped the protection on this, extending the time it is protected and requiring reviews of edits due to extensive BLP violations, etc. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC) > Hi Yschilov. Just letting you know, that Jerusalem Post and the Daily Caller are not reliable secondary sources because they are non-neutral publications. Therefore we cannot use them on Wikipedia. If say, the AP or Reuters talks about a connection to Hamas, then we can consider using it in the article. You can read more about reliable sources here. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Anybody who does not find this suspicious should be banned from Wikipedia for failing WP:COMPETENCE.

>>330002 >not reliable >non-neutral publications 'Member all the shitty rags people wanted to, or did, use in the Gamergate article?

NorthBySouthBaranof has issues with one of the sources that Yschilov is using for Linda Sarsour. Wow does he have issues. > per WP:BLP - we are not quoting anything sourced solely to white supremacist nutters. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Sarsour&diff=762867552&oldid=762865681 > Claim is sourced to a white supremacist blog, so it doesn't belong here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Sarsour&diff=762832345&oldid=762818068 > As per WP:BLP, do not revert again, this material is sourced to a white supremacist house organ. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Sarsour&diff=762870608&oldid=762870413 Let's trace this source because it's fun and it's what the Wikipediots should be doing instead of edit warring over it. North's "white supremacist house organ" is the Algemeiner, a Jewish news site. The Algemeiner cites M. Catharine Evans of American Thinker, a Republican opinion site. American Thinker cites Americans Against Hate, the group of Jewish activist Joe Kaufman. Americans Against Hate cites a report by Sarmad S. Ali of the Columbia University School of Journalism which you can read here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070517013151/http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/election/2004/minority_ali01.asp Sarmad S. Ali cites one Linda Sarsour. > As the presidential election grew near, Linda Sarsour sat in her small office at the Arab-American Association in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, looking at the photos of two thickly bearded young Arabs on the front page of an Arabic-language newspaper. > The paper carried fervent slogans calling on young people to become martyrs in the conflict with Israel. > Sarsour, a 24-year-old Palestinian-American, sighed. One of the men, she said, was a cousin who has been in Israeli jails for 25 years. The other man, she said, was a family friend serving a 99-year prison sentence in Israel. > Her brother-in-law, she said, is also serving a 12-year sentence, accused of being an activist in the Hamas, the religious militant group, though, she said, he was secular in his beliefs. Congratulations to Linda Sarsour and Sarmad Ali! By Wikipedia logic, you are now white supremacists along with those Jewish guys!

Neptune's Trident was taken to AE and blocked for two months for breaking his topic ban on Gamergate that was imposed by HJ Mitchell for adding truthful information to the infobox for Brianna Wu. At ANI the admin corps was especially hard on two newbies for being newbies: 75.175.96.6 who was blocked 48h for bringing an ANI case against Jytdog without knowing what a diff is or how to make one, and Edson Frainlar, an Indian student working under his real name who Bishonen falsely accused of harassment for demanding evidence of other people's accusations of editing in bad faith.

The CNN page had a list of controversies that Aquillion moved to a separate CNN Controversies page to reduce the clutter. One section that fell through the cracks was a controversy about the CNN headline "Trump wants GOP to court black voters — then slams voting rights for felons" which implies that blacks are felons. Saturnalia0 added the mission section because it had been on the CNN page. The Quixotic Potato removed it, edit warred to keep it out, and filibustered the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CNN_controversies&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CNN_controversies#POV_and_UNDUE_edit_removed > I'm not adding anything new, the content was in the CNN page. A user was moving minor controversies to this page and forgot to move this paragraph… Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC) > Who cares where it came from, shit is shit and should be deleted. The burden is on you to prove that an addition is an improvement, but you cannot because it isn't. Oh, and controversies articles suck, just like controversies sections. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Drmies joins in and exposes a bias against a conservative RS that should have him banned from all US politics and force a review of all of his administrator actions in the area. > Shit is indeed shit and should be reverted … BTW, I'm not going to look at your other example, but the Daily Caller is never OK, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC) TQP ran to ANI to get the page protected because an IP had agreed with Saturnalia0. Meanwhile… > (cur | prev) 00:43, 13 February 2017‎ TheValeyard (talk | contribs)‎ . . (76,176 bytes) (-1,093)‎ . . (As far as sourcing goes, Deseret News is no better than worldnetdaily or Brietbart. A middling criticism solely by conservative wings isn't notable.) (undo) The Desert News has been publishing for over 150 years. http://onlinelibrary.utah.gov/news/deseret.html It seems like an ordinary newspaper. http://www.deseretnews.com/ TheValeyard appeared on February 4, lectured another user on Wikipedia notability guidelines in his second edit, and was greeted by The Quixotic Potato an hour and a half later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheValeyard https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=763599948 TheValeyard removed an IP's comment from Jimbo's talk page, calling it "trolling and insulting." The removed comment looks like ordinary Jewish concerns about trivializing the memory of the Holocaust by comparing trivial things to Hitler. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=765015008 TheValeyard seems to be another botter like The Quixotic Potato. > 02:22, 5 February 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-81,716)‎ . . Groundhog Day ‎ (Undid revision 763755819 by Corker1 (talk) - this is witless trivia that doesn't belong in the article. the bot made a mistake, and I have corrected that mistake with the bot) Prediction: We will be seeing more of TheValeyard here and at WiA.

ProBoards has banned Wikipedia Sucks http://wikipediasucks.boards.net currently says: > TOS Deletion > In accordance with Section 25(a) of the ProBoards Terms of Service, this forum has been taken offline. Wow. What rule did they violate? Section 25(a) says: > 25. TERMINATION > (a) By ProBoards > WITHOUT LIMITING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROBOARDS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO, IN PROBOARDS' SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY, DENY USE OF THE WEBSITE AND/OR SERVICES TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON AT ALL So they violated the rule of "fuck you we don't like your face" subsection "suck my dick faggot." I wonder who they pissed off. So far there is nothing about this at WiA or on Wikipediocracy where most of Wikipedia Sucks was banned from. Should we say "Refugees Welcome?"

>>330047 I don't mind. The board's slow enough to handle them without much issue. If you can reach them, invite them.

fixing…

Laser Brain blocked Ranze for three months for these three edits on the 12th: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranze&diff=prev&oldid=765033312 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_v._Turner&diff=prev&oldid=765034831 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zo%C3%AB_Quinn&diff=prev&oldid=765035837 Kyohyi copied Ranze's appeal to AE and questioned the grounds for the block, as did a few other editors concurred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Ranze > First, I think it is important to point out that three out of four of Laser brain's diff's are basically a content dispute. His comments here, his block rationale on Ranze's talk page [30], and his "warning's" [31],[32] demonstrate that his motivation for blocking Ranze was due to him disagreeing on content with Ranze's contributions. This is pretty clearly WP: INVOLVED behavior for an admin. Further, Ranze is not subject to any gender based topic ban at this time, the last topic ban expired April of 2016. [33] –Kyohyi (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC) > The diffs provided by LB show no violation. Some of the edits were removing Wiki voice, such as the one where the sentence was referred to as light, is that Wiki's opinion or some people? And I do fail to see how that article should be subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) > I don't see justification for any sanction here. Whether the topic is covered by DS or not, the only disruptive behavior is one (debatably bad) revert. If that standard were applied consistently we'd have no editors left in edit American Politics or any other DS topic. The rest is down to content choices which is not a subject for AE or administrative action. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Most of the debate ignored whether the block was justified and instead quibbled over whether or not the rape case People v. Turner falls under "gender based controversies." Then Slimvirgin got involved. > Looking at just one of Ranze's edits, on 4 February he removed that the victim was unconscious. That she was unconscious, and therefore could not have consented, was the key factor in the case, so that was a highly provocative edit. SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Looking at that edit, Ranze had said: > Consciousness at time of penetration isn't known as no M.E.s were present when Brock stopped. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_v._Turner&diff=prev&oldid=763624125 Normally this would be a time to look to the sources and see what they say. However, because SlimVirgin spoke, everyone quickly agreed that Ranze is a horrible person so they upheld the block and added a topic ban from anyone remotely related to gamergate or any gender-related dispute or controversy. Also, SlimVirgin may have violated Wikipedia's sourcing rules by citing a court case in a content dispute. > WP:RS expresses a strong preference for secondary sources; court documents are primary sources. And WP:BLP says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Some editors take this very literally. –Weazie (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation > I just want to remind people that wikipedia, as a tertiary source, should generally be relying on secondary sources, per WP:RS, not primary sources, such as trial transcripts, court rulings, etc. for the article, which via cherry-picking leads quickly to something very akin to WP:OR. Some leeway is OK, but resist the urge to go overboard, especially where WP:BLP concerns may come into play. – Kendrick7talk 17:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Troy_Davis/Archive_1 It's another case of "rules for thee, but not for me."

Beyond My Ken threatened DrCrissy with a block for mentioning the fact that he is under a IBAN. Capeo supported BMK. Previously, >>329687 DrCrissy had brought another user to AE for repeatedly taunting him about his topic ban. Beeblebrox describes that case as "entirely without merit." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Correct_place_to_report_interaction_ban_violation Smallbones wants an answer to the question "How does Wikipedia governance work in 2-5 pages?" He has received no answers yet, but I imagine that someone might hand him the first few pages from the Cliff's Notes version of Kafka's "The Trial" and then yank the pages back before he can read them and call in a mob to beat the fuck out of him for no reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

rogoldomedonfors on Wikipedia Review says: http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/102/contract-woes > Early in 2016, the WMF staff decided to ask consultants Valerie Aurora and Ashe Dryden to help them with the drafting process of the Code of Conduct for technical spaces. It appears that Aurora and Dryden had various discussions with staff, face to face and by email, and made various recommendations. The results of that deliberation were largely concealed from the non-staff community members working on the Code. At various stages mention was made of a report that they had been commissioned to produce, and a staff task was opened to summarise it for publication. I have no hesitation is asserting that no such report was ever produced, and that the task, subsequently abandoned, to "summarise" it meant to cobble together the random comments into some kind of narrative. You have got to be kidding me.

Today's drama at AE is Thucydides411 vs. Coffee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Thucydides411 There is a fight between two groups of editors at the page 2016 United States election interference by Russia over the inclusion of some material. Some editors believe that if the challenged material is longstanding, it is against policy to remove it without consensus, so it must be restored. > As plainly described by Melanie, the understanding on Talk page has been that the removal of longstanding article text, if challenged by reversion, requires consensus if it is to be removed again (see also [51] and [52]). Otherwise, almost every editor on the page (myself included, but also JFG, James J. Lambden, Guccisamsclub, Volunteer Marek and SPECIFICO) are guilty of the very same thing in the same or related contexts… -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Others believe that any material can be removed from an article, and it is then against policy to restore it without obtaining consensus. > If we are ever going to enforce the discussion requirement, now is the time to do so because the data is so clear. He is exactly backwards here: you can't restore material challenged by removal unless you have consensus for reinstating. I propose a block of Thucydides411 for violating the discussion requirement, though the length would be negotiable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC) > The discussion requirement seems to allow (a) first-time addition of *new* material without discussion, or (b) first time removal of material without discussion (if nobody removed it before), or (c) a revert of someone else's change if there is a clear talk page consensus against their change… EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Coffee apparently had a hand in writing this policy. > @EdJohnston: Your interpretation of the consensus required restriction is correct. Just so you're aware, when I originally created that templated restriction (which Bishonen applied to this page) it went to ArbCom for a full review where the wording ended up being tweaked to its current state. You can read through the entire ARCA here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Coffee blocked Thucydides411 for a week for failing to follow this policy that most Wikipedians seem to be unaware of. Who hasn't seen admins restore disputed content and block the remover? Thucydides411 immediately appealed, claiming that admins MelanieN and NeilN had supported his actions and eight other editors had done the same thing and had not been blocked.

Guess who's back: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=764292049#Motion:_NorthBySouthBaranof

Have you guys tried getting things up and going on Infogalactic yet? https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page

>>330204 It's just another useless conservapedia, I don't think it has a future.

From today's ANI… 1. Debresser is still trying to claim Jews are not from Judea >>329274 and went to ANI to complain "all those problematic editors are coming out of hiding" after Dani Ishai Behan complained about this and other edit wars in the Times of Israel. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/wikipedias-jewish-problem-pervasive-systemic-antisemitism/ Bbb23 has blocked a couple of IPs for getting involved. 2. New user ארינמל joined to allege at RSN and Talk:B'Tselem that the organization describes the deaths of terrorists killed while engaging in terrorist attacks as irrelevant to Arab-Israeli hostilities. A quick web search on some of the names turns up nothing, suggesting that this is original research and not a copypaste job. Response by Hijiri 88: > posting the same nonsense comment in multiple fora including a talk page and a noticeboard seems like it would fall afoul. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Casualty_Statistics:_Participation_in_hostilities_irrelevant.3F … because questioning the reliability of a source on the Reliable Sources noticeboard is "nonsense." The RSN thread was closed for breaking the General Prohibition, also known as the 500/30 rule from Gamergate, which is serving its purpose by preventing new information from interfering with the official Wikipedia party line on these subjects. For anyone who cares, the user's name translates as Antlion. The natural enemy of Gamergates! http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/a/Antlion.htm 3. Roscelese reported Azarbarzin to ANI for adding derogatory information to the page for Reza Azlan, such as a section showing that he cusses on Twitter like everybody else. Azarbarzin counter-complained that Roscelese had been scrubbing well-sourced facts such as Azlan's membership in the pro-Iran lobbying group National Iranian American Council, for which Azarbarzin has also been adding sources that discuss scandals in the NIAC but do not mention Azlan. Both are clearly editing with an agenda. TimothyJosephWood is taking charge of the page and cutting through the partisan bullshit.

>>330207 And, you think having edit wars over at Wicuckpedia is a better idea?

>>330211 Maybe. I don't think starting a new encyclopedia with an obvious political slant is a good idea however. People need to learn from the lessons of Wikipedia's rules and organization that allowed agenda-pushers to eventually take control and subvert factual content. Figure out how to do it right and then think about forking Wikipedia. The answer isn't to fight subjectivity with more subjectivity.

>>330227 > People need to learn from the lessons of Wikipedia's rules and organization that allowed agenda-pushers to eventually take control and subvert factual content. The problem is social, with the personnel and not with the rules. They do not follow their own rules and they aggressively ban anyone who calls for the rules to be followed. But hey, Jimbo gets to pal around with his rich friends and that's all that matters. > Figure out how to do it right and then think about forking Wikipedia. The answer isn't to fight subjectivity with more subjectivity. Unless you are launching another Wikipedia alternative this week, we have to work with whatever is available. InfoGalactic is the most viable alternative today. It has a nonpolitical name, some dedicated users, it pretends to be independent, and is too new to have earned a bad reputation.

>>330234 It has a highly political founder. It will repel those who are aware and aren't on the same wavelength and serve as a good smear for its enemies.

>>330234 Plus if you're saying the problem is entirely social and based on personnel you might as well just admit that the Wiki Dream is impossible because the same shit can end up happening anywhere. The sort of structure that Wikipedia needs is a professional legal body that isn't elected from the admin corps to settle arbitration. The process for becoming an admin needs to be different as well.

Kind of a side note: Bretbart article http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/25/study-wikipedia-bots-locked-in-edit-wars-with-each-other-for-years/ on a Guardian article reporting on wikipedobots edit warring for years over contested links and shit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/23/wikipedia-bot-editing-war-study Polite sage.

A group of Wikipediots have the personal opinion that the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is on par with Space Lizards From Mars and are ganging up to harass and force out the editors who disagree with their POV that the article should aggressively denounce the hypothesis. jps opened a complaint on the Fringe Theories noticeboard with "Just noticed that this article has totally degenerated into a "sing the praises of AAH" claptrap." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FT/N#Aquatic_ape_hypothesis Mjolnirpants makes this helpful contribution: > Oh come on! It's obviously the right theory, just look at all the blowholes around here. > Oh wait, they're blowhards. Nevermind then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC) 74.70.146.1 reported CEngelbrecht2 to ANI as "a single-purpose account". That account's previous incarnation CEngelbrecht has edits dating back to 2007, although most of its work has been on this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:CEngelbrecht2 Alexbrn and jps left threats on the talk page of Chris55. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris55#FOC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harrassment_by_user:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS Only In Death adds this personal attack at ANI: > There has been a recent influx of the lunatic fringe. (See Fringe noticeboard and elwsewhere). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC) and jps explains his willingness to collaborate with other editors: > Softlavender, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin. Thanks. jps (talk) > 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS Then take it from me, as I am an admin - stop that "final warning" nonsense and deal with what is simply a content issue by discussion on the relevant talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC) > Noted. I will take all further matters to WP:AE. jps (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC) This dispute has been going on for years. > Over these last few years I've seen the article's body text reduced to nothing, where the only focus winded up being "this idea is nuts, go back to sleep". Close to all description of the individual arguments deleted, where it was nothing of an encyclopedic entry. I've seen continous harassment against users adding neutral wordings against this negative bias, again on par with the methods of creationists and ID'ers against evolution describing users. … I see all this as a big threat to scientific thought and the well-intended purpose of Wikipedia. Enough is enough. If AAH is so bloody wrong, a neutral presentation would support that anyway. But that is not good enough, is it? –CEngelbrecht (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#User:CEngelbrecht_making_false_accusations_of_.27vandalism.27_and_sockpuppetry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#CEngelbrecht_and_the_aquatic_ape_hypothesis

Wikipedia's WP:Fringe policy has been edited to justify all of the disruption that the anti-science "Science!!!" gang has caused. Compare today's page to the 2010 page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories&diff=351158562&oldid=350997523 In 2010, "fringe theories" was illustrated by the Face On Mars and was meant to describe: > ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. The page has been changed greatly since then by editors who cite the 2006 Wikipedia ArbCom ruling on Pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience In that ruling, ArbCom made four categories: > Obvious pseudoscience > 15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. > Generally considered pseudoscience > 16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. > Questionable science > 17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. > Alternative theoretical formulations > 18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. The WP:Fringe page today calls this the "spectrum of fringe theories," shortcut WP:FRINGE/PS which probably stands for Pseudoscience Spectrum. Wikipedia now treats every minority opinion in all sciences as conspiracy theories and Face On Mars quality fringiness and so we regularly see actual scientists getting run off by admins who got their knowledge about science from a Thomas Dolby music video.

Debresser's crusade >>330210 is still going on. El_C overturned Eggishorn's closure in >>329275 and reclosed as "no consensus" based on nothing to do with the arguments: > Re-closed as no consensus, due to issues the closer was unaware of but that nonetheless invalidate the closure. Namely, that there were too many participants on the keep side who appear to be SPAs with very few other contributions (including one banned sock). The discussion between the two sides was already really close before this was made evident. Therefore, erring on the side of consensus not having been reached seems like the logical resolution to this drawn-out saga. El_C 12:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) The "banned sock" is ChronoFrog who chose to stop using their account and began editing as an IP with proper disclosure. They were blocked for three months for outing threats, not for socking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 The IP does not appear to have taken part in the RFC or the discussion.

The anti-GG clique fought for about a month over whether Five Guys' page should use "she" or "they" pronouns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zo%C3%AB_Quinn#Pronouns https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zo%C3%AB_Quinn&action=history They've also been fighting on and off for months/years over whether the article should have her actual name (Chelsea Van Valkenburg) or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zo%C3%AB_Quinn#Birth_Name

>>330287 > If Zoe Quinn is not a woman, how can she be the victim of "misogyny"? Misogyny is, by definition, the hatred of women.AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC) > Rather inappropriate and off topic EvergreenFir (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC) hahahahaha! "How dare someone think in our presence!"

Scientology is now an academic theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#What_deliberations_should_be_included.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom

>>330310 Just end me…

Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, Specifico, and Steve Quinn are scrubbing the Russian hacking page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=768249326&oldid=768249048 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=768262753&oldid=768260645 Racosch affair: paid editing by senior members of Wikimedia Switzerland https://wikibuster.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/swiss-papers-another-scandal-on-wikipedia-in-french/

Today's ANI has two cases where veteran editors got disruptive and then reported their victims. First up is some action at the page for the Alternative for Deutchland party. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_for_Germany#Ideology_in_infobox Hayek79 says there is too much stuff in the infobox so let's clean it up starting with one poorly sourced item: > This list is far too long. I would suggest that we remove "antifeminism" at the very least, since this is probably unnecessary and needs to be properly sourced. Hayek79 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken and Jytdog REEEEEEEEEEEEEE and edit war with Mélencron over this, add references to opinion pieces from the party's detractors, imply that Hayek79 must be a right-wing troll, accuse Hayek79 of canvassing for requesting the opinion of an administrator, and fill the talk page with gloating about their righteousness and personal attacks making assumptions about Hayek79's intentions. Per Coffee's new discussion requirement policy >>330132 the challenged information must stay out until consensus can be built for retaining it. Quote: "you can't restore material challenged by removal unless you have consensus for reinstating."

In the second ANI case, Endercase is trying to document shadowbanning but found that the best sources are Breitbart, Infowars, and self-published blogs. However, the information in these sources can be verified if you take the time to look at the evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stealth_banning#Why_I_used_those_sources:_no_longer_meta Endercase noticed that there is a disparity in the application of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy, a difference between: 1. What the reliable source rules say (i.e., Breitbart clearly qualifies as a reliable source) 2. How the rules are actually applied (admins will not let you use Breitbart) 3. Common sense about when to IAR (if there is strong evidence to prove a source reliable or unreliable for a fact, it is reliable/unreliable for that fact regardless of RS policy) To get the widest input on this subject, Endercase went to several different administrator boards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#Should_we_have_a_list_of_approved_and_not_approved_.22news.22_sources.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVN#Can_sources_be_banned.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Question_about_your_vision To keep partisan politics out of the discussions, Endercase posed his questions vaguely, so vaguely that nobody could tell what he was talking about. So they went through his history, saw the words Breitbart and Infowars, and started a partisan conflict. Fyddlestix and Only In Death found a related discussion about Breitbart hiring mainstream journalists with good reputations to report on the Mexican drug war. They use this example to conclude that these journalists are now frauds because they work for Breitbart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alfredo_Beltr%C3%A1n_Leyva > Either way, the answer is no: Breitbart is not a reliable source for facts … Fyddlestix (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC) > I would not use a far right publication which has 'issues' (putting it mildly) with people from south of the US border… on articles about crime south of the US border. I trust I dont need to point out the POV issue here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Endercase has to remind the regulars of their own policy: > At the top of this page it says: "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." … Endercase (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC) They followed him to the other boards and busted up those discussions with comments like this: > So far you have forumshopped this crap at RSN, jimbo's talk page and now here. Why dont you take a hint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Hijiri 88 threw a hissy fit at RSN and reported Endercase to ANI, immediately poisoning the water with a personal attack: > This user is apparently WP:NOTHERE, and I don't frankly know what to do. Both cases are still open. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:IDHT_and_WP:IDLI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Endercase

Jorm took offense to the title of Guy Macon's Signpost op-ed "Wikipedia has Cancer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed However, we can prove this to be true with logic! 1. Wikipedia has Feminism 2. Feminism is Cancer (per Milo Y.) ∴ Wikipedia has Cancer This is proof! It's true! Guy Macon is actually talking about Wikipedia's ballooning receipts and spending. Their assets are up to $91 million now and they are spending $65 million a year, and only $2 million of that is hosting costs. What are they spending all of that money on?

From Eric Barbour at WO: > I bet you didn't know that Karmafist was the focus of a plot–by Jimmy Wales and Steve Dunlop. > They openly talked about "going meatspace" on him and trying to get him charged with federal crimes. http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2115

>>330318 IP stepped on a landmine > Hijiri88 needs a long topic ban from American Politics for comments like "Breitbart.com and other rightist fake news sites" and "the FRC thread, about a Christian fundamentalist, anti-LGBT hate group" which suggest that Hijiri88 is incapable of cooperating with editors with different points of view. Breitbart is a real news source that meets WP:RS. A distaste for its political stances (WP:IDLI) is not grounds for disallowing it or comparing it to Infowars. Anyone who tries to enforce partisan purity on Wikipedia should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC) blocked by Bishonen, Bbb23, Ritchie333, Yamla, and The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Hijiri88 wrapped the comment in a WP:DENY block

NorthBySouthBaranof is back to edit warring in Gamergate pages already. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brianna_Wu&oldid=769614981#Space_tourism_and_moon_rocks_…

The Dark Knight on Wikipedia Review has a beef with Ritchie333: > For his spectacular record of putting friends and the overall 'mission' above basic Wikipedia policy, current admin Ritchie333's admin candidate nominations, of which there have been several, bear close scrutiny. Any that look like they were not exactly new users when they first registered, probably weren't. And Ritchie's friends, well, they tend to be the sort of people who get banned, or otherwise 'retire' before the inevitable occurs. http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/204/sockpuppet-admins?page=1 And also: http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/190/daily-respond-wikipedia-idots-predictably?page=2 > Remember all those people in the RFC who said that this was not a ban, since the Mail would still be acceptable as a source for what it says itself? Yeah, they were lying…… > Check out the state of Tom Utley's biography after the Mail h8ters have fricked with it. Who he? Well, he's the Mail journalist who recently wrote a piece on the unreliability of Wikipedia. > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Utley&oldid=769954910 > All those references now tagged as "unreliable?", yeah, they're Mail pieces written by Utley himself. > The two editors involved are Slatersteven and Guy Chapman, who later hacks some of them out for transparently false reasons. > The former was one of the people called out by the Mail for their comments in the RFC, and the latter is the dude who thinks referring to the Mail as the "Daily Heil" on Jimbo's talk page is the way to convince people the Mail wasn't banned for POV reasons. (FYI: Guy Chapman is JzG) > Someone calling themselves slaterseven is the last person to comment in Utley's Mail piece. Oddly enough, he's telling lies. First he lies about Utley not admitting his son was the source of some vandalism to his article (it's right there, and was there when I first read the piece on the day of publication). Then he lies about it not having ever happened - he should probably ask an admin what the significance of this log entry is….. > en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Tom+Utley And also: http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/213/winkelvi-prisoner-number-38124?page=1 > There is a well known spectrum on Wikipedia - they are way too quick to pass judgement on new users, while at the other end, they are way too slow to show the door, politely and respectfully, to users who are well meaning but, for whatever reason, prove to be complete time-sinks. > Winkelvi is at the extreme end of the spectrum, the time-sink end. Nice commentary, worth stealing.

Winkelvi is in trouble at ANI but who cares, this is entertaining. > Endorse either continued block, 0RR, or both. … Neutralitytalk 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC) > None of the admins (except Coffee) called for 0RR; we all called for 1RR instead. … Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC) > Welcome to the "community" (of people who are not watching WV's talk page). Keri (t · c) 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC) > Oh please. You want everything handled on ANI? Drmies (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC) > No, just prolific, tendentious repeat offenders. What a fucking stupid question. Keri (t · c) 01:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC) > What happened here to bring people like you out of the woodwork? First you're clamoring for openness, and when I ask if you want everything out in the open you say that's a "fucking stupid question". Learn some manners, child. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC) > Nowhere have I advocated for "everything to be handled on ANI". Your mocking tone and straw man ad hom tells me everything I need to know about you. Given that I have never advocated bringing "everything" to ANI, it is a fucking stupid question, designed purely to belittle me and undermine my opinion and dripping with trademark passive-aggression. As is your pathetic trolling/baiting attempt with "learn some manners, child." What's next, "your mom" jibes? As for "What happened here to bring people like you out of the woodwork?" And what exactly are "people like me"? You mean "other editors"? The "community"..? And "the "woodwork"? You mean working on the encyclopedia and not daring to question your judgment, like good little drones? What a thoroughly unpleasant little man you come across as. Keri (t · c) 18:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC) > At about the same time as Drmies was insulting Keri, he left an abusive post on my talk page in which he stated that my "condition" (i.e,, my Asperger's, which I just mentioned in a comment) is more "excusable" than Winkelvi's.WTF? Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Bishonen blocked Keri for calling Drmies a passive-aggressive cunt and also blocked an IP for asking why only one side was blocked. It does look like Keri started it all with that jibe at the "community." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keri&diff=771402898&oldid=771399415 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A91.49.79.216

Update on The Devil's Advocate: Wikipedia Elites Change Reasons for Banning Dissident Editor http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/24/wikipedia-change-reasons-banning-editor/ They have dropped the charge of harassment, essentially admitting that it is false. They have also clarified that they want him gone because he argues for upholding Wikipedia policies on articles where the members of Arbcom would rather run roughshod over the encyclopedia. In other Wiki news, Encyclopedia Dramatica had its domain lapse. They claim that se.nic failed to process their renewal payment and is not responding to their inquiries. http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/224/encyclopedia-dramatica-ed-deactivated-nic > Domain registrar didn't log our last payment and haven't replied to our ticket. I sent them the receipt so we'll see. https://twitter.com/EDdotSE/status/844732906211815424 The Nazi wiki Metapedia is down. http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/232/metapedia-wiki-3-25-17

>>330412 ED has switched to .rs https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Main_Page Make sure to check out the article about "Horseman of Wikibias" Ryulong, it was updated to include his post-Wikipedia ban antics. https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Ryulong

JzG is scrubbing all of the references he can find to several economically liberal/libertarian think tanks and blaming it on Vipul. His targets include the Heritage Foundation and the econlib.org Library of Economics and Liberty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#massive_deletions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjensen#Biased_sources

Wikipedia's 2012 paid editing scandal may be related to Gamergate. TL/DR: * Wikipedia had a paid editing scandal in 2012 that was run through WMF UK and GLAM * Some of the same people from that scandal are in WMF DC or run in the same social circles * Sarah Stierch was quietly rehired by WMF DC after she was fired in 2014 for paid editing * Sarah Stierch links Gamergate to GLAM * Gamaliel, one of the key partisan admins in Gamergate, is closely linked to WMF DC * The Wikipedia board is aware of all of this and supports it. >>326054 Wikipedia, paid editing, GLAM, and Gamergate * From 2012: > Roger Bamkin, trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, whose LinkedIn page describes him as a high-return-earning PR consultant, appeared to be using Wikipedia’s main page "Did You Know" feature and the resources of Wikipedia’s GLAM WikiProject (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) initiative to pimp his client’s project. Max Klein of OCLC was also involved. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57514677-93/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/ https://archive.is/hie2H Roger Bamkin's Twitter @victuallers https://archive.is/3km6m retweets and mentions: @wikistrategies, Pete Forsyth's company; Creative Commons; WikiWomenInRed. * Sarah Stierch was exposed as a paid editor in January 2014, publicly fired, and quietly rehired by WMF DC some time later. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-fires-editor-who--enhanced-entries-for-cash-9052308.html https://archive.is/lFtMk * On May 30 2014, Sarah Stierch held a Wikipedia meetup at a women's studies event at University of Maryland, College Park. Attendee Shaun Edmonds created an article for Zoe Quinn for the first activity with his new Wikipedia account. The article described Quinn as a victim of sexist harassment citing Carly Smith's Escapist article about the Wizardchan incident. https://twitter.com/sailorsuzaku/status/472383278708948994 https://archive.is/KIo2t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ShaunEdmonds https://archive.is/vktjq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/College_Park/WMST_Summer https://archive.is/I913H This suggests that Stierch was acting as a PR agent for Zoe Quinn before the Zoe Post. * Sarah Stierch / MissVain talked about GLAM in the context of Gamergate: https://archive.is/IhtaX > I have interacted with only four of them - Black Kite, Future Perfect at Sunrise, TarainDC and Bilby - only one is a female in real life and I know her from GLAM editing projects. She is the only one that I know who has actively edited feminist topics prior to this. I actually consider Bilby an ally, but, I have never heard him or any of the other editors blatantly identify themselves as feminists. Related info * Open Society Foundations / Open Society Institute is a mercenary spy agency that works for Islamists. One of their grantees is related to Gamergate. >>327792 >>327795 >>327924 >>328191 * Jake Orlowitz >>324800 called for a Code of Conduct and supports George Soros's Open Society Foundations. * Wikimedia DC contains at least one other Soros operative and several left-wingers. >>324299 * At least two other people in Wikimedia DC work for PR firms. >>323841 >>324394 * Wikipedia and WMF DC refuse to confirm or deny whether or not Gamaliel is on their board, and tried to get a journalist fired for asking. >>325610 * WMF DCer Emily Temple-Wood has received promotional coverage in the Guardian as a victim of online harassment. https://archive.is/SbIYX * The Guardian had its writers take instructions from Leigh Alexander who was at the center of the Gamergate, and rewarded her with work afterward. https://web.archive.org/web/20150329155719/https://i2.wp.com/theralphretort.com/wp-content/uploads/GUARDIANEMAIL1.png * Guardian writer Keith Stuart was involved in the #WeLoveGameDevs distraction tactic. https://archive.is/gVwEG (described: https://archive.is/mZCbD ) and promoted Brianna Wu. https://archive.is/88JHF * Jimmy Wales has called for abusing Wikipedia to manipulate public opinion to prevent another Brexit. >>325481

Here is some extra research on some names that might be related. This is not dirt. The dirty people might be among this group or known to them. The GLAM-Wiki US Consortium is intended to coordinate with libraries and museums. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/US/Consortium Non-Wikipedians: * Merrilee Proffitt, OCLC (Online Computer Library Center, formerly Ohio College Library Center, maintainer of WorldCat). LinkedIn: https://archive.is/e9HnN * Bob Kosovsky, New York Public Library. LinkedIn: https://archive.is/Q0eQ7 * Adrianne Russell, Marianna Kistler Beach Museum of Art, Kansas State. LinkedIn: https://archive.is/u4z9s Twitter @adriannerussell: https://archive.is/L3ToU Co-founder of Museums Respond to Ferguson. Retweets people supporting George Ciccariello-Maher who called for the genocide of all white people. * Sara Snyder, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. LinkedIn: https://archive.is/Mu6gT * Pam Wright, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). LinkedIn: https://archive.is/PnTaO * Dylan Kinnett, Walters Art Museum. LinkedIn: https://archive.is/UQomr Summer 2004 intern editor with Eastgate Systems, the company of Mark Bernstein. * Lori Phillips - aka Lori Byrd Philips, Children's Museum of Indianapolis Wikipedians: * Phoebe Ayers - No relation to Bill; everybody asks. Author of "How Wikipedia Works." LinkedIn: https://archive.is/e6arB * Andrew Lih - Wikimedia DC Cultural Outreach Committee. LinkedIn: https://archive.is/T344L teacher at American University, board member Student Press Law Center, 2001 guest lecturer at National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. * Dominic McDevitt-Parks - probably Dominic Byrd-McDevitt, member of Cultural Outreach Committee, also a NARA contact. Linkedin: https://archive.is/8qCcE * Pete Forsyth - Wiki Strategies, a PR company. * James Hare - Wikimedia DC President. * Jake Orlowitz - WMF staff. * Dorothy Howard - freelance writer, WikiConference USA 2014 Lead Conference Organizer, Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Starting October 2013. LinkedIn: https://archive.is/25Hdb * Alex Stinson - WMF staff, Wikipedia Library project manager. Affiliates: * Max Klein - additional contact for OCLC. * Jane Park - School of Open, Open Policy Institute, Creative Commons * Peter Brantley & Brewster Kahle - Internet Archive * Joris Pekel & Sam Leon - Open Knowledge Foundation, OpenGLAM * Micah Walter - Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, * Karley Klopfenstein - American Folk Art Museum Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Starting October 2013 https://archive.is/25Hdb February 2014 ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon at Eyebeam Art and Technology Center in New York City. Organizers: * Siân Evans - Art Libraries Society of North America's Women and Art Special Interest Group. LinkedIn: https://archive.is/bJIm5 ARTStor, wrote ArtWatch for Forbes. * Jacqueline Mabey - The office of failed projects, Bennington College. * Michael Mandiberg - Profile: https://archive.is/8G1t6 CUNY professor of media culture. Recipient of residencies and commissions from Eyebeam, Rhizome.org, The Banff Centre, and Turbulence.org, his work has been exhibited at the New Museum, Ars Electronica, ZKM, and Transmediale. * Laurel Ptak - Website: https://archive.is/5yo48 director and curator at Triangle Arts Association. * Richard Knipel - President Wikimedia NYC, board member Wiki Education Foundation, Guggenheim Museum wikipedian in residence. Linkedin: https://archive.is/yuBab Eyebeam and Buzzfeed share a cofounder. >>324818

>>330428 Interesting. I wonder if the paid editors are working for Saudi Arabia because of the Gaffney mess and because Wikipedia is now enforcing the hard-right interpretation of Sharia Law by banning content that makes Islam look bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KarmaChameleon

On April 2 Mike Cernovich reported that Susan Rice had "unmasked" or outed the identities of Trump campaign operatives in anonymized intelligence reports. Eli Lake issued a similar report the next day. https://medium.com/@Cernovich/susan-rice-requested-unmasking-of-incoming-trump-administration-officials-30085b5cff16 https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel And at 07:08, 3 April 2017‎ Lectonar protected Susan Rice's page for "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy" that do not yet appear in the log. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Rice&offset=&limit=500&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Rice&offset=&limit=500&action=history The first victim is McCouchsky who added the unsourced claim that "Susan Rice was confirmed by multiple news sources to have been responsible for the unmasking of democratic party political opponents on April 3 2017." Rather than improve this or request sources, Bishonen indefinitely banned McCouchsky. Yamla, Anthony Bradbury, and Huon rejected McCouchsky's appeals. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=773672166 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McCouchsky#April_2017_2 NeilN removed comments by an IP who provided two sources and suggested changing the word "democratic" to "republican." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Rice&diff=773725647&oldid=773725185 NeilN removed another IP's comments accusing the admins of gaslighting, and then blocked the IP while involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Rice&diff=773808220&oldid=773808014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.58.233.191 TariqMatters accused NeilN of censoring the talk page. NeilN banned TariqMatters and removed a photo of Donald Trump from his page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Rice&diff=773995839&oldid=773994810 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TariqMatters&diff=773995634&oldid=773995551 And on another IP's talk page, Ebyabe smugly said: > The information you added about Susan Rice has now been completely removed, so it is no longer an issue. Thank you and have a pleasant day. –‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 03:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:96.255.240.103 And that is how Wikipedia handles a Watergate-type scandal.

Drama alert from Twitter's @mombot: > The wikipedia admin who is editing the Gender Representation in Video Games article is the same guy who wrote Brianna Wu's wiki article. > He is also the guy who is accused of aiding Brianna Wu to repeatedly edit the Samus Aran wikipedia article to indicate that Samus is trans. https://twitter.com/mombot/status/850575226563829760 The admin is Sandstein who created Brianna Wu's page on 12 October 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brianna_Wu&offset=&limit=500&action=history Wikipedia promoted the Gender Representation page through its twitter account. https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/846381547204702208

GoldenRing had a 'historic' RfA and was made an admin despite an uproar being made over his low edit count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GoldenRing#Oppose You may remember in 2015 GoldenRing was the one who made an ARCA request about Gamaliel gaming the system to unleash his comrade Mark Bernstein back into the Gamergate area. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=647662813 Both the 'retired' Gamaliel and Mark (who recently got off the 6-month block he earned last year) decided to come vote Oppose at this RfA in what definitely appears to be for spite in Mark's case. They were followed by an anti-GamerGate SPA (who may have seen a thread about it on reddit and canvassed itself) as well as the Wikibias diaperfag himself, NorthBySouthBaranof.

The Wikimedia Foundation globally banned Reguyla / Kumioko from all WMF projects for being a threat to "the health and safety" of Wikipedians. http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/269/reguyla-kumioko-globally-banned-wmf The "abuse" consists of criticizing the head of Wikimedia UK for a bad indef. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reguyla&diff=239785036&oldid=239083114

Couchsurfing's safety team had a bad reputation. http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/2011/03/12/unprofessional-couchsurfing-safety-team/ https://archive.is/Sc28o > I was sexually assaulted by another couchsurfer at a couchsurfing party when he crept into the bed in which I was sleeping. When I was woken up by his fingers inside me, I pushed him off and went straight to a member of the “safety” team whom I had spoken to earlier that night. She and another Couchsurfing ambassador then spent an hour and a half screaming at me, and telling me I should not report what happened, as the man was a respected longterm couchsurfer and nobody would believe me. > and what is it with banning people just for intellectual forum posts.My friend was banned for daring to argue with some lesbians in a forum who launched a cynical campaign against him. Nothing to do with his travel experiences just political correct totalitarianism. > Shortly after Couchsurfing became a for-profit organisation, it was announced that all but two of the “Safety” Team were being sacked (using the euphemism “having their duties reduced”). > I guess the investors running Couchsurfing realised exactly how much of a legal liability it was to have a “Safety’ Team that openly protected their friends from negative references, while simultaneously deleting or harassing Couchsurfers their friends disliked or felt threatened by. > Unfortunately, it appears the two people who presided and abetted this unprofessionalism, Rachel DiCerbo and Kalliope Tsouroupidou, will still be involved in the Safety Team. Rachel DiCerbo was later Director of Community Engagement for Wikipedia's Product department, and has since left WMF. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rdicerb_(WMF) Kalliope Tsouroupidou is on Wikipedia's safety team. http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/298/sleazebags-wmf-safety-trust

Wikidrama in Dutch: https://edoornbusch.wordpress.com/tag/wikipedia/ Graaf Statler says he was globally banned for complaining about incompetence in Wikimedia NL. They also globally banned Greg Kohs, probably for investigating Wikipedia's finances. http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8299

Here is the case against Graaf Statler (in dutch) https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title.Verzoekpagina_voor_moderatoren.Regblok&oldid=46669310#Graaf_Statler_2

Jimbo clarifies NPOV, Jytdog overrules him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan#WP.27s_NPOV_vs:_.22true_objectivity.22_vs:_.22majoritarian_journalism.22

>>330474 > > I agree to acknowledge, without reservation, that Reuters, the Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, and ABC News are all WP:PRIMARY sources. There was an unexpected end to that. Bbb23 banned BlueSalix and LavaBaron (from the Frank Gaffney edit war) as sockpuppets of each other. There does not seem to have been an SPI, so either he runs checkuser on people without probable cause or he received information from a backchannel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_BlueSalix And in an update to >>330421 JzG desysoped himself for burnout. He had been catching flak for banning econlib.org because he doesn't like libertarians and was starting to delete references to the marxists.org library after an inconclusive RSN debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=775717482#Desysop.2C_please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_224#Marxist_Internet_Archive

Return of Kings has launched Kings Wiki and is promoting it by taking potshots at Wikipedia which provides plenty to criticize. They focus on Jytdog going after Janweh64 for properly disclosing his paid editing, and they give a brief mention to Endercase trying to remind the egotistical admins about Wikipedia policy. http://www.returnofkings.com/120700/wikipedia-is-a-dire-warning-of-what-happens-when-you-let-social-justice-freaks-take-over

Concentrated cancer on Wikimedia-ML in February 2017 https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086206.html It starts with a post by Yair Rand questioning why the Wikimedia Foundation took a position on refugee policy without an internal discussion. > The Wikimedia movement Wikipedia is a movement now? I thought it was an encyclopedia. > is both global and very ideologically diverse … score: 50% > Recently, political advocacy on Wikimedia forums has risen substantially, especially on this mailing list. While I sympathize with the difficulties these contributors face in remaining silent … Wrong answer. You are supposed to discourage them from bringing their unrelated bullshit into the business and using wikiproperties for evangelism. If they keep doing it, get rid of them. Otherwise you have the choice of either giving up any pretense of neutrality or allowing people to spam the mailing lists with WND and Free Republic. Saying that you symapthise with them only encourages it. > We will be much worse off if half of any given country's political spectrum can no longer cooperate in our mission Half? You think it is only half? They are banning socialists who are insufficiently adherent to the party line. > We are precariously close to the point of no return on this … The point of no return was the Gamergate ArbCom case when Wikipedia allowed biased administrators to ban people for following policy and having a POV that was supported by the RS at the time. The Democratic Party activist group Personal Democracy Media gave the admins barnstars for holding Wikipedia to a strict party line. ArbCom chose not to see a conflict of interest, chose to uphold the invalid bans, and chose to explicitly approve of what the admins were doing. After ArbCom gave them the green light, the admins have gone wild with banning anyone they disagree with on any subject where they have a party line to push. They have been especially harsh on anyone who points out their own policy violations. Finally, Rand gets to the point: > Three days ago, the WMF put out a statement on the Wikimedia blog explicitly urging a specific country to modify its refugee policy, an area that does not relate to our goals. There was no movement-wide prior discussion, or any discussion at all as far as I can tell. > It is the responsibility of the community to ensure that our projects remain apolitical. A neutral point of view is impossible if participating requires a certain political position. > It is the responsibility of the mailing list administration and moderators to act against this list's rapid slide into unreadability. Let's see how Wikipedians respond…

Andrea Zanni plays buzzword bingo: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086207.html > Having a global and diverse movement means finding value, albeit implicitly, in diversity (of language, sex, gender, culture, pov). The NPOV is not a "null" concept: it means giving weight to different point of views, merge them together to find a balanced article on something. Which is why it is bad for Wikipedia to ban all news sources other than the left wing of the corporate mainstream. > The MuslimBan can affect volunteers or staff at the WMF, it goes against everything we believe in. "Look at how outraged I am at absolutely nothing just because other people are pretending to be outraged at something that does not exist and I want to fit in!" Natacha Rault says but Hitler! https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086212.html > I am personnallly pretty impressed from across the ocean: in the 30s had some leaders shown more courage maybe Hitler would not have been able to start a genocide. > We are watching from over the ocean, as europeans these refugee bans remind us of very dark memories. > (actually there is no achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the gender biases as far as I see it) Amir Ladsgroup makes shit up: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086214.html > This ban caused hate crimes against Muslims all over the world. Terrorist attacks in Canada, setting fire mosques in Texas are all because of this simple ban. and exposes institutional bias inside WMF: > - People in WMF voted for Trump: If that's true, which I don't know because anyone from WMF I know were publicly against Trump, It's very saddening to see someone who works for WMF votes for someone who practically opposed everything Wikimedia movement stands for. Pax Ahimsa Gethen plays buzzword bingo: > My opinions as a US-American, member of multiple marginalized groups (queer/black/trans), and "social justice warrior" (though I prefer "mage", being a pacifist): > - Having a truly "neutral point of view" when it comes to anything regarding Donald Trump is not really possible. because Trump publicly speaks in support of transgenders and gays and PoC so you have to love him, right? Oh, no. You are insane. Robert Fernandez (Gamaliel) tries to justify his partisan abuse of tools https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086229.html > To contend that Wikimedia activity is, can be, or should be always politically neutral is naive and comes from a place of privilege where your personal engagement will likely never be threatened by political interference. Andy Mabbett is the first to come up with an argument for Wikipedia to get involved with this. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086223.html > There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC, who would not have been able to attend under the current ban. Fair enough.

Ivan Martínez seems to really think that Trump will be able to make Mexico pay for the wall. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086225.html > I may write this biased message from my place of enunciation: a country that has been threatened for several days directly by the decisions of the President of the United States. Gerard Meijssen attempts to weigh sources. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086218.html > When you talk about abortions, sources are important. What a political party, a government has to say is an opinion. What Doctors without Borders has to say is observable fact. What they say is backed by scientific observations. Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières) might also have some expertise on the "refugee" issue, but I would not trust what they say about that. https://gefira.org/en/2016/12/04/ngos-are-smuggling-immigrants-into-europe-on-an-industrial-scale/ http://archive.is/bFMDJ James Salsman proposes that Wikipedia place a banner on every page. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086306.html > We urge extraordinary measures a national general strike, work slowdowns, work-to-rule, stoppages, boycotts, protests, and civil suits by all with legitimate standing, to demand that the U.S. government expel their executive leadership immediately… Gerard Meijssen brings up Bassel Khartabil. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086260.html > We have let one of us die in prison [1]. The same argument. I will be honest; I hate this. I have trouble believing that people can argue this way. This was one of us and apparently we do not care. Bassel Khartabil was jailed by Syria during the war. The government accused him of spying. https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/10/09/1614214 https://neotarf.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/the-jimmy-wales-foundation-and-free-bassel/ > Our reputation is in tatters [2] because of the way our servers are energised. This refers to a website that nobody cares about that rates Wikipedia's electricity source as non-renewable. One presumes that the rating could be improved by paying off the website owner or his friends to "consult" by casting a magic spell over the electrical outlet so that the electrons coming in off the city's power grid will be from renewable sources.

JzG and Bishonen, with JamesBWatson concurring, indeffed Ellaqmentry for providing medical sources to support the use of acupuncture as a pain treatment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellaqmentry Ellaqmentry wrote about this and was published in the February Journal of Chinese Medicine, causing some drama back on the 'pedia. https://archive.is/rDVex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acupuncture#This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_multiple_media_organizations-BRD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Journal_article_about_edit_wars_over_Acupuncture http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8326

>>330083 that 3rd URL about the "activist label" is a pretty good point. How come Zoe Quinn isn't categorized as an activist? Aside from her "about" page, there was 3 references posted supporting that which I found posted on the banned talk after some digging. Posted them on a new thread >>330590 since it would be nice to have an issues-based positive discussion about Zoe. Her standing up for depressed people and sex workers is great, and I hope the positive feedback and attention from the UN she gets helps create more support systems for depressed people and sex workers. I'm not sure why Wikipedia is censoring that she is an activist helping the depressed / sex workers; it is no secret and she declares this openly and it's notable enough to get media coverage. It's almost like editors there are white-knighting to protect her from her own words even though they've been out there for years and she's never taken them back, and used her past as a depressed person and a sex worker towards the positive aim of helping depressed people and sex workers who are suffering from persecution and being shunned by society. I think the reason for Wikipedia's censorship of these facts is pretty clear: they don't want people to know about the sex work because they think it will tarnish her image. That is a very sex-negative viewpoint which I think is slut-shaming by Wikipedia. I have a sex-positive viewpoint and I admire her work in this and how it has helped her grow as a person. Just like her depression, I don't think it takes away from her, but it actually adds to her, especially since she used both these 2 aspects of herself as a bridge to help others.

Redditors, including the SPAs and various shitbags that fought over the Gamergate article, are currently duking it out over whether /r/ShitRedditSays should be on an article about controversial reddit communities. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Controversial_Reddit_communities&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controversial_Reddit_communities#RfC_Including_SRS_as_a_Controversial_Reddit_Community

>>330595 > Redditors, including the SPAs and various shitbags that fought over the Gamergate article, are currently duking it out over whether /r/ShitRedditSays should be on an article about controversial reddit communities. featuring PeterTheFourth and MarkBernstein and Jorm. And Tarage, who was seen in the last thread: >>315398 > Liz reopened the complaint against JzG after Chillum admitted his involvement. A normal user named Tarage overruled Liz (who is now an admin) to close the report and threaten the filer with a block. and Koncorde, who we haven't seen before. The previous discussion about SRS is archived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controversial_Reddit_communities/Archive_1#SRS One of the admins oversighted the addition of SRS to the page. This is usually only done for a BLP vio. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversial_Reddit_communities&action=history Someone had a bit of fun. A new user named Cecil B Pimento reverted one of Koncorde's posts for "persistent faggotry" and got indeffed by Bishonen for stealing his MO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cecil_B_Pimento https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cecil_B_Pimento#May_2017_2

Nauru either has a national soccer team or they don't. Some say they don't. > (cur | prev) 11:55, 16 May 2017‎ 130.95.254.145 (talk)‎ . . (2,311 bytes) (-37)‎ . . (remove unofficial fan-made logo) > (cur | prev) 13:19, 12 November 2016‎ IgnorantArmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (222 bytes) (-2,086)‎ . . (WP:BOLDly redirect to Soccer in Nauru – as noted there, Nauru has no official national team) > (cur | prev) 09:42, 12 November 2016‎ IgnorantArmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,308 bytes) (-255)‎ . . (remove colours – totally unsourced, and given the team has only played one game probably made-up) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nauru_national_soccer_team&action=history on Talk: > Seems not very important, as they have not played a game in over 16 years. 82.141.66.217 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Fenix down insists that they do and protected the page to keep the IPs from editing. An IP reported this to ANI. > [User:Fenix down] keeps adding wrong material to [[Nauru national soccer team]]. I have removed it twice and now he has blocked me from editing it. > He writes that the team exists (it hasn't played since 1994). Even the other article about soccer in Nauru says it "has no official national team". > He writes that the Nauru Amateur Soccer Association exists (there is no evidence of this, and a [citation needed] already there). > He writes that Nauru played the official Solomon Islands team in 1994 (the article directly contradicts and says that they only played random workers who were on the island). > He uploaded a logo that is fake and non-offical, it is just fan art. It was either made by him or made by someone else on a fantasy graphic design website. > He didn't respond to any of this, just said I was being "disruptive" and blocked me. I have done research for this, if he has done research to prove that he is right why doesn't he add it to the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=781329056&oldid=781326381 JJBers closed the report within 15 minutes with the summary "Troll, edits were pure vandalism." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=781330887&oldid=781329932 JJBers and Kleuske deleted the IP's response. > How are they pure vandalism? Did you actually read what I wrote above? > This is the board for admins, why are you even deleting my thread before any admins read it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=781337940&oldid=781337717 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=781337508&oldid=781337412 JJBers and MjolnirPants then accused the IP of personal attacks, threatened to block him, and deleted the IP's responses from his own talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:106.68.178.108&action=history Neither side has gone to Talk or provided sources. As a side note, IgnorantArmies was indeffed as a sockpuppet of Bozzio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IgnorantArmies#Blocked_as_a_sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DoRD/Archive_12#IgnorantArmies

Following up on >>329846, Motsebboh was blocked as a sockpuppet of BadmintonHist who was indeffed by Bishonen in 2013 for repeatedly breaking an interaction ban with Roscelese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Badmintonhist/Archive#02_May_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#User:Badmintonhist_again

Following up on >>312094 from the previous thread, Future Perfect at Sunrise bullied SimpsonDG off of Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SimpsonDG > I've been involved in quite a few projects in my life, both paid positions and unpaid volunteer projects. I can say, without hesitation, that Wikipedia is BY FAR the most hostile work environment I've ever been involved with. The Wikipedia "administrators" are the worst of the lot. Many of them seem to be only interested in acquiring power and authority within Wikipedia, and bullying other editors with threats to have them banned or blocked. Anytime you attempt to contribute to an article, your motives and credentials will be questioned, and your edits will be immediately deleted. If you complain about the instant deletions, these administrators will retaliate by searching your edit history and deleting your previous Wikipedia contributions one by one. I have personally gotten caught in some of this crossfire from time to time, and even had one administrator vandalize my user page. I recently caught another administrator rifling through my edit history for the sole purpose of looking for something he could threaten me with. It's no wonder that Wikipedia is hemorrhaging editors. > > Consequently, I've decided to quit Wikipedia and devote my energies elsewhere. Also, I've started a Wikipedia alternative called Nanopedia, where I'll be posting new encyclopedia-like articles from now on. Nanopedia is currently just a few articles that he wrote along with an essay "The Case Against Wikipedia." http://nanopedia.davidgsimpson.com/

On WiA: Snooganssnoogan under the AE hammer for alleged anti-conservative POV-pushing https://np.red*dit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/6conhx/snooganssnoogan_under_the_ae_hammer_for_alleged/ Snoogans got topic banned, but what makes this interesting is that a new Reddit account LordPrivyToastRack claims Snoogans is Tarc who was indeffed by ArbCom for offsite harassment. Tarc is a friend of the admins. If he is back, they would know it and would be knowingly letting him break an indefinite block. LordPrivyToastRack gave no evidence for this claim, but it does raise the drama levels.

>>330622 Interesting, he made his account 4 months ago to welcome back Vigilant, who had gone on a hiatus after the presidential election or something like that. Not sure what evidence Lord saw to make him believe that account was Tarc ban evading, but Tarc for sure has been socking. He has repeatedly admitted to doing so on the Wikipediocracy forums, which he had gone back to posting on shortly after getting indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. From what I recall he was trying to make multiple accounts and only edit certain things on them in an attempt to evade detection, but said he got "bored" and stopped (this was in 2015). He also stopped posting at WO until after the 2016 election, and has been active there ever since so it is likely he is also back to socking on Wikipedia, if he ever really stopped.

The Devil's Advocate identifies Kings Wiki founder Jean Valjean as a pedo named Nathan Larson who goes by Leucosticte on Wiki. http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/346/leucosticte-writing-wikipedia-criticism-return https://archive.is/tzd2n We know Nathan Larson as Nasal Ant Horn, part of a gang of four users who came to a discussion about incels to accuse three other users of being a offsite Gamergate group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Involuntary_celibacy_%284th_nomination%29#Allegations_of_Canvassing https://archive.is/FzvrX If TDA is right, Kings Wiki is a honeypot.

>>330630 >If TDA is right, Kings Wiki is a honeypot. We had our suspicions about it for a while now.

ArbCom stuck The Rambling Man with a one-way interaction ban on Bishonen because of two diffs, secret evidence, and secret discussions. Those voting were Euryalus, DGG, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Opabinia regalis, and Mkdw, with everyone else recused or inactive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_The_Rambling_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_The_Rambling_Man TRM questions the process: > Nothing I'm doing here is in any way subject to any restriction. On the other hand, what Arbcom have done is to (a) actively ignore anything I've said and (b) chill the discussion on admins who have abused their positions by demonstrating the extreme lengths Arbcom go to in order to protect them. The IBAN is unjust, but is a symptom. This needs the community to be aware of the machinations and the cover up. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC) > I responded to you personally detailing the cadre of individuals about which that message was posted. I had hoped you would apply some logic to it, or at least to attempt some empathy. But no. The diffs outlined by GW are still publicly available and mention not one single individual by name, and, once again, for the avoidance of doubt, you 100% know the group of individuals I was referring to so stop with the false accusations. Similar to your false claim that all of this is still not publicly available. You even pointed me to a site where I could access rev-del'ed text. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC) TDA has looked at TRM's history and found two diffs accusing Bishonen of making bad blocks http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/153/bishonen?page=3 > I don't think Bishonen is the admin you should be debating this with, especially given recent punitive blocks and their results. > No, just to put the record straight, I did like Floq, and still do, yet he was enabled by numerous admins, including Bishonen, to call me a pr*ck and to tell me to "f*ck off", and call me an "a**hole". That was an admin talking to an editor. Bishonen has recently made strongly damaging punitive blocks for no benefit to Wikpiedia. Is that all this is about?

Meet the Data and Society Research Institute. https://datasociety.net/people/directors-advisors/ https://archive.is/RTv3V Some of their board members: * danah boyd of Microsoft Research * Anil Dash who has his own thread >>324605 * John Palfrey, co-director of the Berkman Center Some of their advisors: * Cathy Davidson of the Futures Initiative https://archive.is/WlcLQ part of HASTAC https://archive.is/WbMpz run through the CUNY Graduate Center where Katherine Cross worked https://archive.is/8BvHy * Joi Ito, head of MIT Media Lab, brother of Wikimedia Foundation advisory board member Mimi Ito >>323039 * Ethan Zuckerman, director of MIT Center for Civic Media, Wikimedia Foundation advisory board member >>323039 funded by Ruth Ann Harnisch http://archive.is/6YEOf * Christina Xu, funded by Ruth Ann Harnisch http://archive.is/6YEOf * Micah Sifry, co-founder of Personal Democracy Media * Andrew Rasiej, co-founder of Personal Democracy Forum Now meet Thomas M. Charging Hawk, webmaster of Personal Democracy Forum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Charginghawk https://archive.is/Yuitz > 02:44, 12 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+568)‎ . . User talk:TaraInDC ‎ (→‎A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message) (Tag: wikilove) > 02:43, 12 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+575)‎ . . User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom ‎ (→‎A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message) (Tag: wikilove) > 02:35, 12 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+555)‎ . . User talk:Gamaliel ‎ (→‎A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message) (Tag: wikilove) > 02:21, 12 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+555)‎ . . User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof ‎ (→‎A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message) (Tag: wikilove) That was two days after TDA requested an ArbCom case for Gamergate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate

>>330635 Correction, Charging Hawk is webmaster of Personal Democracy Media which hosts the Forum.

>>330634 Ks0stm killed a comment by Mr. Ernie about Bishonen's conduct https://archive.is/ORTOw

Today at ANI, Slatersteven reported Mjollnirpants for blatant civility violations in deleting his comments and telling him to fuck off. Roxy the Dog and Only In Death ganged up on Slatersteven and told him he deserved it, and Boing Said Zebedee! closed the issue as "an unproductive minor dispute." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#another_fuck_off_from_MjolnirPants

Tarc says that early power user Jayjg was controlled by a team. http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8350 > > It is claimed that Jayjg stood down from Arbcom when the rule came in because he didn't want to give his identity to the WMF. > "Jayjg" was a role account, "his" posts changed in style and tone at times, so there was never a single identity to give.

In February an IP reported Bishonen and Sitush to ANI for their conduct on the article Phulkian Sardars. Boing! said Zebedee blocked the IP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Inappropriate_behaviour_by_editors_User:Sitush_and_User:Bishonen_.28already_tried_RSN.3B_no_resolution_achieved.29 Since Bishonen's behavior is the cause of the Rambling Man case, the IP gave his experience. Bbb23 blocked the IP, called it a troll, and revoked its talk page access before it could appeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=782604414&oldid=782602221 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.234.199.122

Franzboas is an alternate account that was created in accordance with Wikipedia's valid alt policy to edit in highly controversial areas involving with white supremacists and antisemites. For example, on Zionist Occupation Government Conspiracy Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory Franzboas added an example of Israel Shamir using the term ZOG in a 2004 book about the Iraq War to the history section which lists examples of prominent antisemites using the term ZOG. Rockypedia edit warred to remove it and denied that the history section included other uses of the term. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory&diff=783355011&oldid=783290011 Franzboas quoted Leonard Weinberg's article On Responding to Right-Wing Terrorism in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence to describe what antisemites believe. Rockypedia edit warred to remove it and claimed that the journal is an unreliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory&diff=780591444&oldid=780571297 On Jewish Bolshevism, Franzboas suggested that the article should discuss how "Jews were strikingly overrepresented in many communist movements," while taking care to differentiate this fact from conspiracy theories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism Franzboas explained himself on Newyorkbrad's talk page. > many mainstream and largely uncontroversial writers (including many leftist Jewish academics) discuss the influence that Jewish identity, Jewish values, and Jewish interests had on major political movements and schools of thought. Many of these narratives are then exaggerated by far-right extremists, but excluding them from Wikipedia on that basis would be censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newyorkbrad https://archive.is/dbxaa Cue the usual admin lynch mob. Drmies suggested that Franzboas should be banned for knowing history. > Brad, it's getting better and better: Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism#Adding_a_sentence_about_baseline_truth_to_the_lead: this editor thinks that a "baseline truth" is "Jews have been proportionally overrepresented, sometimes heavily overrepresented, in many Communist movements". I think it's time to make some decisions here. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris began the false accusations. > This self-acknowledged alternate account is clearly a violation of WP:GHBH. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) Dennis Brown banned Franzboas. > I've indef blocked the user. I will post this at WP:AN for review as it is an unusual block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC) And the virtue signalers celebrated the banning of an editor who had not made a single racist edit. > Gentlemen, you have greatly restored my faith in WP governance by intelligent analysis and swift decisive action. A.k.a. Good block! Irondome (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC) > Thanks to both of you for your good judgment here. GABgab 22:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown moved the discussion on Franzboas to the Administrator's Noticeboard where the virtue signaling and celebration continued. > Oh, and I support this block, did I forget to mention that? Bishonen | talk 15:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC). > Support block. See User talk:Rockypedia#Jews in cultural anthropology and ethnography, where the editor falsely asserted that I "supported" her or his antisemitic vandalism. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC) > Good block. Thanks for taking it upon yourself to do what needs to be done. El_C 16:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC) > Obviously a good block. Neutralitytalk 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC) > the block is needed given the comments on Newyorkbrad's page. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC) > Endorse block and thanks to Dennis Brown for decisive action. I saw some of the advocacy and it was corrosive. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Drmies used checkuser tools to identify Franzboas's main account, and Beyond My Ken calls for blocking that account too. > Good block - I knew it would come to this after the arbitration request. My only question is why this wouldn't extend to the primary account, since it is the person who made the edits, not the account… Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC) > The main account should be blocked as well. Not sure why it hasn't been. –NeilN talk to me 23:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC) > Trying to game an alt account to shield yourself from repercussions of what the user clearly knows is unacceptable behavior is not okay. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC) > Whomsoever the ultimate jurisdiction should fall to, I am increasingly inclined to expect a siteban. There is no place for (fairly open) antisemitic fascists on WP, who are now openly attacking other vulnerable minority groups. No place. Zero tolerance. Irondome (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC) > Personally, I would be looking at blocking the main account as well. It is utterly ludicrous that the misuse of a sock implies some sort of privacy… Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC) > Support - If current policy is interpreted to mean that users can create scrutiny-evading socks to make racist/anti-Semitic comments on the encyclopedia and level despicable personal attacks at other editors without penalty to their primary account, our current policy is fatally broken and must be changed… NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC) > … this just seems like it was a mis-cue to allow the alt account in the first place. Given the subject matter the alt account was set up to engage in, and the whole Arb Com discretionary sanctions within that subject matter, it seems right to indef block of the master account. — Maile (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC) > Support for the abuse of WP:VALIDALT in order to violate WP:NOTADVOCACY in a sustained way. That alone is enough, without even mentioning the nature of what they were promoting. The thing that is puzzling is that as ugly as the editing was, there was this shred of honor in disclosing that it actually was an alt account. So odd. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC) > We have an editor, who has a legitimate alt account, that was making anti-Semitic comments. How is this not gaming the system?… Both the sock and master need to go, this behavior has no place here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC) > What in the hell provision of SOCKLEGIT is being used here to even protect the master? They gave that up by posting a bunch of malicious, discriminatory and basically awful shit… Capeo (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC) The discussion includes no evidence showing any kind of racism or violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE by Franzboas.

Wikipedia has a guideline, not a policy, that you are not allowed to list the editors of academic journals without a reliable source describing the editor's involvement in the journal. This is because many academic journals fluff up their reputation, i.e. lie, by listing as editors prominent academics who have no actual involvement in the journal. Remember that Wikipedia considers these journals their most reliable sources! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:JWG#List_of_authors_and_full_editorial_boards Headbomb, the author of this guideline, removed the names of advisory board members from the page for the feminist journal philoSOPHIA. Randykitty and DGG concurred. SlimVirgin and Hypatiagal edit warred to restore the names, and then SlimVirgin placed the article under Gamergate discretionary sanctions and threatened to block the opposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PhiloSOPHIA#Advisory_board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Dispute_over_philoSOPHIA_article Salvidrim took this to ARCA, arguing that a dispute over a Wikipedia guideline is not a gender-related controversy. GorillaWarfare agrees with SlimVirgin's assertion that it is. Discussion is ongoing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate The article was nominated for deletion a week ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PhiloSOPHIA The journal's board includes Judith Butler who thinks that Hamas and Hezbollah are progressive movements. How reliable! https://web.archive.org/web/20170307131345/http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/is_judith_butler_the_new_edward_said.html

Bilby is suppressing news of the Evergreen State College riots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Evergreen_State_College#Recent_events https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Evergreen_State_College&diff=783379836&oldid=783354865 After Uppah 27334 proposed a section of text on the talk page, Bilby rejected it. > Your text contains significant errors and relies on unreliable sources. It misses the main issues in what happened, and currently it is very difficult to get a picture of what the issues were, as the mainstream media is mostly ignoring the story, leaving it to tabloids and agenda-driven press. - Bilby (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC) > Please point out these "errors." Uppah 27334 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC) > What "main issues" did I miss? Uppah 27334 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC) A week later, Bilby has not answered Uppah's questions. And there is the usual Wikipedia practice of declaring all non-leftist sources to be "unreliable." > we both need to stay clear of unreliable sources such as The Daily Caller, NY Post and the like… - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

People wanted to add a section about the Kurt Eichenwald hentai story that blew up recently, others including "Horseman of Wikibias" NorthBySouthBaranof are setting up camp to keep it from being mentioned. >I'm not seeing any actual reliable source question "the veracity of his statements" — no reliable source that I can find asserts that Eichenwald isn't telling the truth, and no, anonymous Twitter users don't count for Wikipedia purposes. Moreover, describing the situation as a "controversy" appears to be entirely unsupported, because a "controversy" requires, y'know, some actual debate about something, and there isn't any here. "Person forgets he has a weird tab title open" is not "controversial." I suggest that we wait to see if this disappears from the public eye like a million other flash-in-the-pan things someone on the Internet latched onto for a few minutes; if this actually somehow becomes a significant event in his life and career, we can add it at that future point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC) >I agree with Trivialist; this doesn't have any place in a brief biography for any number of reasons, notably undue weight; it doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. If we were writing a comprehensive book-length biography, some mention might be possible to give due weight to; however, that's not what we're doing, and any mention of this trivial nonsense here is unnecessary. i would remind new editors that we are not sensationalistic tabloid purveyors and Wikipedia is not a platform for disseminating such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Someone linked to Travis' ED page and was indefinitely blocked. http://archive.is/EBvkd#selection-2155.0-2167.27 http://archive.is/qKa6Q >Note: NorthBySouthBaranof's comments should be ignored per WP:MENTAL Shalpley (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's power users have banned another source. > Additionally, Washington Times is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC) > Not only Washington Times is unreliable source (this is not Washington Post), but this edit is a 1RR violation on the page [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War)

Sagecandor, Northbysouthbaranof, and Dumuzid have been gang-protecting the page for military analyst Malcolm Nance to remove any mention of a controversial statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Malcolm_Nance Sagecandor accused Power~enwiki of trying "to be disruptive and jeopardize the stability of this page" for removing one line from the lede that is repeated in the main article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Terrorists_of_Iraq Sagecanor refused a request from Seraphim System to stay off his talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphim_System#Please_stop_making_false_baseless_claims When Power~enwiki linked to Nance's own Twitter account and a Youtube video of Nance, Sagecandor said that Power~enwiki "cites Twitter and YouTube" as if he had linked to random people unrelated to the subject. Power~enwiki reported Sagecandor to ANI for wiki-lawyering and ignoring reliable sources. Black Kite closed the report after an hour and 40 minutes, claiming "there is nothing here asking for administrative intervention." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sagecandor

I am not intentionally following Power~enwiki but he has showed up in the middle of several dramas. PerfectlyIrrational was editing in a few controversial places and was banned by Bbb23 as a sockpuppet without an SPI or a link to the master. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PerfectlyIrrational Power~enwiki had reported PerfectlyIrrational to ANI for "disruptive" editing. MelanieN had a different take on it. > My evaluation of the situation (not speaking as an admin, since I am WP:INVOLVED at that article): Perfectly made a sourced addition to the article. Power reverted it. Perfectly isn't going to restore it, since Power has challenged it and the article is under DS. What's supposed to happen now is discussion. It seems a little - what shall I say? premature? - to rush immediately to ANI over this. –MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#PerfectlyIrrational The Rambling Man accuses Power~enwiki of using multiple accounts. > And what other accounts have you been using? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Power~enwiki&diff=787000256&oldid=786999727 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Power~enwiki&diff=787000669&oldid=787000360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jim_Michael_and_User:The_Rambling_Man New user Técnico cited the New York Times to show that reliable sources differ on whether Breitbart should be described as "far-right" or "conservative-leaning." Power~enwiki reported Técnico to ANI for resisting the other Wikipedians' stonewalling. > I request a full ban for 1 week. He's clearly either trolling, or not competent to participate on Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Those ganging up on Técnico include Dr. Fleischman, Carl Fredrik, Johnuniq, Callmemirela, Jytdog, NorthBySouthBaranof, PaleoNeonate, Beyond My Ken, MrX, and TimothyJosephWood. Técnico responded by asking each of them to participate in the NPOVN discussion. Doug Weller accused Técnico of being paid by Breitbart. The mob slowed down when Masem noted that Técnico was following policy and no one else was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breitbart_News https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=786364164#Breitbart_News_lede_is_violating_WP:BALANCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:T.C3.A9cnico_.28moved_from_WP:AN.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T%C3%A9cnico#About_your_post_on_my_talk_page

Sashirolls found something. > I wonder if the Signpost would be interested in analysis of the $436K paid out in 2015-2016 to Minassian Media, Inc by the WMF according to their 2015 990 form. (The company is registered to Craig Minassian, Chief Communications Officer of the Clinton Foundation). Another story I'm working on is the superhuman effort of an editor who has written 17 book reviews this month. The two stories may even be loosely related based on political affiliation and strategy. SashiRolls (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC) So not only is Hillary Clinton's PR company on Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself is funding Hillary Clinton's PR company. Over at AE they see this as grounds for an indefinite block of the person who found the information. > Okay, after reading the link provided below, I support an INDEF from Wikipedia. Creepy indeed! – BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC) > Well… I'm not going to have any hurt feelings over an indef. The above is just creepy AF, and this is starting to get into actual real life stalking. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

SashiRolls found Sagecandor suspicious enough to track his activity. http://ling.creoliste.fr/index.php?title=En-WP:_Act_III_--_The_Sagecandor_Incident http://ling.creoliste.fr/index.php?title=En-WP:Press_Release_/_An_Open_Letter_to_ArbCom which got him indeffed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SashiRolls > the so-called "community" calling for my indef block also testified for leniency in the mass-POV editing case TParis v. Snooganssnoogans (20-24 May), to wit: Sagecandor, Neutrality, Bullrangifer, Volunteer Marek, Objective3000. Tryptofish & Neutrality were also both involved in arguing for the inclusion of a copyright violation of a piece placed in an IAC paper (Chelsea Clinton on the BoD). The piece was written by a DNC-associated author and the copyvio was added to the BLP page of a political opponent within 24 hours of its appearance. so Boing revoked Sashi's talk page access.

NorthBySouthBaranof, Grayfell, and Volunteer Marek are edit warring to scrub the CNN Blackmail Controversy article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CNN_blackmail_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CNN_blackmail_controversy&offset=&limit=500&action=history Volunteer Marek wants the article deleted and reduced to a brief mention in the CNN Controversies article. Objective3000 chimes in: > This is a POV-fork and should be speedy AfD'ed. Objective3000 (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof started an RFC to kill the article as "WP:NOTNEWS". In a little over three hours he had the unanimous support of MrX, LM2000, Zrowny, Saturnalia, General Ization, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek, and SageCandor. A few new users began to stand up in opposition while Grayfell, PeterTheFourth, ValarianB, Rhododendrites, and Smeat75 added their support to North's proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CNN_controversies#Proposed_merge_with_CNN_blackmail_controversy NorthBySouthBaranof reported Drakry to ANI for reverting his censorship and identifying North as a troll. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Immediate_attention_needed_on_CNN_blackmail_controversy

TDA found some drama. http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/417/black-kite Here is the short version. > Basically, an editor called Max Browne who has been on the site over ten years got in a bit of trouble because in several edit summaries he referred to PayPal founder Peter Thiel as a "creep" while removing various New Zealand categories > Black Kite came barrelling in with a block and some insulting commentary. All of it is just him repeatedly referring to Browne, in multiple places, as a child or telling him to "grow up" even after it was suggested this was uncivil of Black Kite. > Worse yet is when the editor of ten years complained about Black Kite's behavior, four admins and two wannabes jumped in to defend Black Kite wholeheartedly, with the wannabes and three of the admins repeating the insult and one going further by likening Browne's behavior to a tantrum.

Big drama on the French Wikipedia! The WMF cut funding to the French Wikipedia by half after Harmonia Amanda quit in a dispute over the interpretation of the "diversity code of conduct" and other troubles were going on. Translation of GorillaWarfare's timeline: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088012.html https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088015.html Juicy bits: * February 2, 2015 - Nathalie Martin hired her husband Cyrille Bertin as finance and participation advisor * June 27 2016 - Bannergate - the director and president added a banner without following the rules. Benoît Prieur resigned in protest. In December Prieur would get a letter from a law firm. * January 16, 2017 - Harmonia quits Wikimedia France over the diversity code of conduct. * February 16, 2017 - WMF opens an investigation into harassment of Harmonia by the French Wikipedia and threatens to revoke their grant agreement. * January and February 2017 - Envel Le Hir, Pierre-Antoine Le Page, and board chair Caroline Becker resign, Becker doing so for legal reasons in the Harmonia case. * March-April 2017 - Cyrille Bertin becomes Secretary General while his wife Nathalie Martin is still Executive Director * April-May 2017 - Pierre-Selim Huard and Jean-Frédéric Berthelot resign. * 4 May 2011 - Émeric Vallespi ascribes the resignations to "an exceptional threat to the organisation due to non-respect of the obligations in civil and criminal law upon the leaders of the association" not as "political dissension within the Board". * 11 May 2017 - The mailing list admin removes "a large number of members and contractors" from the mailing list. Vallespi accuses 3 of the resigning board members of putting the association in danger. * 12 May 2017 - Wikipedia France starts shit with Wikipedia Argentina by dissing the Argentine MOOC * 14 May 2017 - The WMF Funds Dissemination Committee cuts the budget of Wikipedia France in half. Local volunteer coordinators organize a meeting in response, where a demand is made for the board's resignation. Martin claims that the funding cut was punishment for the Harmonia case. > When some people realized that the investigation (for harassment - editor's note) was not credible as initially announced, because it did not answer to any fair and transparent process. It was abandoned and replaced by an an outrageously negative assessment that goes so far as to worry about the sustainability of Wikimedia France! The remaining board of French Wikipedia published an open letter accusing "some members of the Wikimedia community" of "destabilization and denigration" and "refusal of dialogue and their contempt for the rules that govern our organization", pledged to blacklist these unnamed people, and threatened them with legal action. They also accused their former community liaison Jules Xénard of something and accused former Wikimedia France president Christophe Henner of unspecified misbehavior. https://medium.com/@metasj/a-recent-letter-from-wmfrs-board-annotated-d8e19c2bc0b Chris Keating calls for revoking their charter. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html Statement by Katy Love, WMF Director of Resources https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088014.html WO thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7980&start=50

Salvidrim applied for bureaucratship. 12 people switched their votes from Support to Oppose after GorillaWarfare revealed that Salvidrim had participated in a "What's the worst crime you ever committed before you turned ten?" thread and had a fetish for urinating in public places. Jorm jumped in to call him racist and PeterTheFourth called for his admin rights to be revoked. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Salvidrim! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016/Candidates/Salvidrim!/Questions#Questions_from_GorillaWarfare https://archive.is/bmJb3

The Quixotic Potato left this unusual message on Karen Brown's page: > I am a board-approved potato, please do not revert me. Thanks in advance, The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kbrown_(WMF)&diff=17005761&oldid=16902278 https://archive.is/ncuCF This seems to be about TQP's addition of a {{cn}} tag to the WMF Annual Plan > (Undo revision 17005716 by The Quixotic Potato (talk) This text is a board-approved document; please do not add or remove things to/from it) (undo) https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2017-2018/Final&diff=prev&oldid=17005745 So it's just trolling, but TQP does seem to have an unexplained amount of protection.

From Daniel Brandt ten years ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/3089-daniel-brandt/ https://archive.is/j1TEG > Since June 2006, a top administrator at Wikipedia has kept six sites by Public Information Research on the Wikimedia Foundation's spam blacklist without justification, and has ignored requests by other editors to explain himself. If a domain is on this blacklist, any Wikipedia editor who tries to link to any page on that site has his edit aborted. These six sites are all nonprofit and tax-exempt, and none has ever carried any ads. How do they qualify as spam? The six websites: www.namebase.org www.google-watch.org www.scroogle.org www.yahoo-watch.org www.cia-on-campus.org www.wikipedia-watch.org Let's visit archive.org to see what those sites used to look like. www.namebase.org > This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. www.google-watch.org > This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. www.scroogle.org > This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. www.yahoo-watch.org > This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. www.cia-on-campus.org > This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. www.wikipedia-watch.org > This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. What the fuck, archive.org?

Jytdog attacks SlimVirgin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Charlie_Gard_case Some time ago Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail. SlimVirgin ignored that decision and cited the Daily Mail on the Charlie Gard article. When Jytdog told her that was not allowed, she accused Jytdog of working for a PR firm. Jytdog also accuses her of biased editing. > Since her first edits at the page, SlimVirgin has trying to create a frame and try to force things into it. SlimVirgin uses tl;dr as a defense, canvasses another user, and demands to be removed from the complaint against her. > I'm going to let the length of the above speak for itself. Pinging Coretheapple. I'd appreciate if it someone would remove my name from the heading. SarahSV (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Two of Wikipedia's most politically powerful editors are at ANI. Let's see who takes sides. Johnuniq ignores the complaint and condemns Jytdog's past behavior in other cases. Ealdgyth calls this "a classic case of bringing a content dispute to ANI." Coretheapple, Jusdafax, DynaGirl, and MontanaBW call for a boomerang against Jytdog. Only Kingofaces43 supports Jytdog's position. Masem tries to be neutral and suggests that maybe it might have been troutworthy for SlimVirgin to continue accusing Jytdog of being a paid PR operative after he denied it. Power~enwiki says there is nothing sanction worthy here. Kingsindian describes the diffs as "mistakes" An IP with a grudge, 49.195.121.88, attacks Jytdog for his past behavior. IP 121.216.192.249 accused Jytdog of hating women. Beyond My Ken feels forced to out Jytdog as a woman because that matters more to Wikipedia than whether rules are being violated, so Jytdog is forced to out himself as male to correct the record. JudeccaXIII put himself on a fast track to being banned: > I just need to express a few of my concerns. Let's start with SlimVirgin's username being removed from the title of this discussion. This is ANI, I've seen usernames about editors, IPs, and admins in the title of a discussion here. Even now, some of these ANI reports have usernames in the titles of a discussion. But no editor is willing to remove the names accociated with the discussion. Yet, for some reason, there was an exception for this case because of a request. My point is, no one should be getting special treatment at ANI nor hide from an ANI report about them. My other concern is SlimVirgin's first response. She didn't bother to argue with the report, instead, she pings editor Coretheapple. Then she decides to ping editor Whizz40 for what? To me, this is inappropriate WP:CANVASS. And who in the hell are these IPs? They ain't new editors asking for advice. I can understand Jytdogs's frustrations. His/Her behavior is obviously not appropriate, but neither is SlimVirgin's. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Proboards has banned Wikipedia Review It was a matter of time. WO is talking about it. http://www.wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8214&start=50

Wikipediocracy collects user IPs and tries to identify users they don't like. http://www.wikipediacritics.com/2017/03/honeypot-venus-flytraps-of-wikipedia-critics

This is a very interesting exchange here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction#Please_stop_your_association_with_Minassian_Media.2C_Inc._until_you.27ve_cleaned_up_the_cabals_on_en.wp 1. Sashi says fire the Clinton Foundation and the cabals on en.wiki 2. IP says several WMF board members work from the top of the Democratic Party's PR machine, names the PR agencies but not the people 3. Nemo_bis / Federica Leva of Wikimedia Italy comes in to defend Soros, accuse the IP of working for Hungarian intelligence, and dump speeches against Hungary from top EU officials

Volunteer Marek has been acting up again. Marek, Neutrality, Specifico, and Geogene are tag-team to remove links The Nation, Bloomberg, and Philadelphia Inquirer as "fake news" and "fringe" because the analysts quoted in these reports said the DNC leak was a leak and not a Russian hack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak Marek, Kencf0618, and ArbCom member Doug Weller were scrubbing mentions of Antifa's violence from their page. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/31/editors-on-wikipedia-seek-to-downplay-violence-and-ideology-of-antifa-movement/ Marek was casting aspersions on other editors at the pages for DACA and DREAM Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Full_prot_for_E.2FW_and_discussion_needing_closure_.28and_PS_about_Marek.29 After a short discussion in which Marek did little more than insult everybody who got in his way, GoldenRing gave Volunteer Marek a three-month topic ban for disruptive editing. Only In Death and NorthBySouthBaranof piled on the insults against the admins building the case against Marek. Fram unilaterally removed GoldenRing's sanction before being told by Izno and Future Perfect that he did not have that authority. Boing! said Zebedee and Winged Blades endorsed Fram's action. Neutrality, Black Kite, Chris Howard, Begoon, and Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi said they saw nothing wrong with Marek's actions and called for his topic ban to be removed. After outrage from other admins that the rules were being enforced on one of their friends, GoldenRing was pressured into reducing the block to a topic ban and then removing it entirely. Drmies retaliated for GoldenRing's topic ban by blocking an IP for a week for disagreeing with Marek and reporting his behavior to Samsara, who had opened the AE thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:170.178.156.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals&diff=prev&oldid=798632603 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASamsara&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=798986511&oldid=798883913 An IP jumped in to threaten to have GoldenRing's admin bit revoked. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldenRing&diff=prev&oldid=799191410 Once again we see a disruptive editor who is flagrantly pushing his own opinion and not trying to be cooperative, protected by two members of ArbCom and a herd of administrators. They all need to be banned. >>331097 < there is a huge single-party PR ring embedded inside Wikipedia at the board level That might have something to do with this behavior pattern that we keep seeing.

GoldenRing asks whether Wikipedia should be hosting pictures of naked children taken without their consent, not to discourage "people looking at naked boys" but because people might be embarrassed by having their childhood pictures on the Internet. Nil Einne responds with several other situations that people might find embarrassing and mentions the difficulty of trying to form a coherent standard to police this sort of thing, if you would even want to. GoldenRing responds: > :I don't buy a lot of your argument above; if I could paraphrase briefly, it seems to amount to, "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=801209605 Nil Einne is highly offended by this misinterpretation of his words. So highly offended. > I'd planned to leave this discussion, but I need to reply since you made highly offensive comments about me. I never said anything remotely like "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever". I explicitly noted that I am not saying so ("Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements") precisely to avoid this but you ignored my comment and instead made offensive comments about me. Please do not make such highly offensive misleading statements about me ever again. I'm definitely done with this discussion now. Good luck ever getting anything changed when you make such highly offensive misleading claims about what people are saying… https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=801214253#Another_question > This is one of the few times I've ever actually thought this (maybe only 1 or 2 other thimgs) since I'm much more generous than most other editors. You should not be an admin. Anyone who will completely ignore what someone actually said and make such highly offensive comments should never be. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoldenRing#Highly_offensive_comments

BrightR found an unsourced section in the page Nude Swimming and tagged it as needing sourcing. Beyond My Ken edit-warred to remove the tag. After two weeks of waiting for other editors to add sources, BrightR removed the section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nude_swimming&diff=795945429&oldid=795923584 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nude_swimming&diff=799566424&oldid=796213473 ClemRutter joined in on BMK's side with the strange message "Policies fine - just don't acually apply here." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nude_swimming&diff=800283295&oldid=800275126 BMK accused a wandering IP of sockpuppetry for taking BrightR's side. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nude_swimming&diff=800968317&oldid=800968169 Beyond My Ken took BrightR to ANI with an accusation of being disruptive and tendentious. BrightR pointed to five policies that he said BMK is violating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive965#The_.22In_popular_culture.22_wars_apparently_never_ended The first admins to the scene, David Eppstein and John, supported BrightR's position. Then BrightR called for BMK to be placed under a 1RR restriction, and a WP:GANG arrived on the scene. Clemrutter accused BrightR of "bulldozering his pet POV - without leaving sufficient time for anyone who is not permanently on line to make a comment." BrightR noted that by that time the other editors had a month to look for sources. Nihlus Kryik threatened BrightR with a block and called his arguments "tenuous at best and incongruous at worst." Black Kite threatened sanctions on BrightR for having participated in the edit war with BMK. Begoon concurred. Baseball Bugs said "Bright needs to stop deleting stuff he doesn't like. This is just a glorified content dispute." By ignoring the clearly stated issues of policy, this is WP:IDHT. MarnetteD accused BrightR of "trying to WP:GAME the system." Certified Gangsta called this "clearly a political attempt for Bright to gain an upper hand in a content dispute." Mendaliv called the request "vindictive gamesmanship" and threatened BrightR with sanctions. Roxy the dog called the request "cynical gaming the system" and said John was wrong about the policy. When John asked for evidence, Roxy did not provide any. Davey2010 called for BrightR to be indeffed. Miles Edgeworth also accused BrightR of "trying to WP:GAME the system."

Drama in NPOVN Archive 67. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_67 1. NPalgan2 asks if the article on Steve Bannon should have a pic of a protester calling him racist, what with BLP and all. TheValeyard says: > The connections of Steve Bannon to white nationalist causes is a widely-held point of view, supported by countless reliable sources. 2. Sangdeboeuf is scrubbing the Linda Sarsour page of mentions that people other than the alt-right have protested against her. NorthBySouthBaranof backs him up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linda_Sarsour#CUNY_speech_controversy ZinedineZidane98 protested, Nableezy went to his talk page to accuse him of sockpuppetry. Sangdeboeuf also edit-warred to remove references to the Washington Times, TheBlaze, and Chris Wallace from the page Patriot Prayer. Jorm and K.e.coffman joined in. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriot_Prayer&diff=800353082&oldid=800349891 3. Terrorist96, citing the SPLC, says that black supremacy is racist and so the article should have the template for Racism topics. Wikipedians disagree with this! Malik Shabazz and Grayfell removed the template. Fyddlestix and Pincrete say they can't call it racist without a reliable source and the SPLC doesn't count. Objective3000 concurs with the "no RS" group and lectures someone against saying "call a spade a spade." TheValeyard accused Terrorist96 of "skirting the line of a racist statement" for saying "Black separatists are black supremacists by definition." The Four Deuces adds: "The SPLC article does not say black supremacism is racist." Carwil cites professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva to define racism as "prejudice plus power" and not as its actual definition of discriminating against people and considering some better than others on account of their race. The Blade of the Northern Lights objects to this, and NorthBySouthBaranof and EvergreenFir jump in to defend Carwil.

Greg Kohs sent a DMCA to the Gender Desk for using a screenshot of Wikipediocracy in a post about Wikipediocracy. https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/wikipediocracy-takes-no-prisoners-kohs-fires-off-dmca-against-gender-desk/ https://archive.is/HCBmw

It's time for some ancient Wikidrama. From 2009: The Rush Limbaugh media lynch mob https://web.archive.org/web/20091018180153/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100013647/the-rush-limbaugh-media-lynch-mob/ https://web.archive.org/web/20091018063437/http://proteinwisdom.com:80/pub/?p=2963 >From CNN to MSNBC to ABC, it’s been put about that Limbaugh said this: > > I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark. > It’s also been spread around that he said this, about the death of the man who assassinated Martin Luther King: > > You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed. > Here’s CNN’s Rick Sanchez baldly stating at the 1.14 point that Limbaugh made the slavery comment: > Trouble is, he didn’t say either of these outrageous things. And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here. They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. These quotes were added to Wikiquote by an IP in 2005. https://web.archive.org/web/20091018063437/http://proteinwisdom.com:80/pub/?p=2963 New user TheVidiot tried to remove the quotes in November-December 2008, seeking help from an admin and posting to the Village Pump twice. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:InvisibleSun#Need_Help_with_Enforcing_Guidelines https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_25#Single-sourced_Rush_Limbaugh_quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_26#Rush_Limbaugh_Edit_War So Cirt accused him of adding dubiously sourced quotes, blocked him, and indeffed him for using an IP to appeal the block and continue talk page arguments. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/014#Blocked_User:TheVidiot The "dubious" sources were Newsbusters and the Media Research Center quoting Limbaugh himself saying that the Wikiquote quotes were fake. https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=1024304&oldid=1024279 https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=1024309&oldid=1024306

Proabivouac caught my attention with this claim: https://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1932&start=10 > I am still not clear on what this gamergate thing is about, other than that it means a great deal to Molly White and Emily Temple-Whatever who are paid editors on the committee A search on this username turned up some drama from 2009: > Indef blocked. Account was SPA, with only purpose of trolling respected admin, Kalki (talk · contributions). Note: Please see also prior history of indef block at its en.wikipedia account, [1]. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Proabivouac > Since User:Proabivouac turned out to be correct maybe an unblock is in order? JoshuaZ 00:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_1 Proabivouac accused attorneys Greg Prickett (GregJackP) and Natalie Malonis (Minor4th) of meatpuppetry. Their response? "Natalie Malonis claims she is being intimidated and harassed!" http://www.yeoldejournalist.com/natalie-malonis-claims-she-is-being-intimidated-and-harassed/ https://archive.is/4mKej

Cathry was site-banned by Cyberpower678. This is the backstory. Zefr reported Cathry to 3RR for once reverting one edit of Zefr's and opened the discussion by claiming without any evidence that Cathry "is a repeat vandal and disruptive editor on numerous articles." A dynamic IP accused Zefr of tag-teaming with Jytdog to get around 3RR. Kingofaces43 posted a list of recent edits by Cathry and falsely described them as "problematic," "ranting," and "actively flouting WP:EW." Ymblanter blocked Cathry for a week. When the IP complained that Cathry had done nothing to deserve a block, WJBscribe extended the length of Cathry's block. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive351#User:Cathry_reported_by_User:Zefr_.28Result:Blocked_1_week.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cathry Cathry recognized Ymblanter from Russian Wikipedia and accused him of being canvassed offsite. Ymblanter denied this, denied any connection to the Russian Wikipedia, and reported Cathry to ANI for personal attacks. Ymblanter got support from Tryptofish who Cathry had attacked for rejecting a review article on Glyphosate because it cited Seralini for the information that Cathry had tried to add to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glyphosate After the IP posted links showing that Ymblanter was active in Russian Wikipedia community efforts, Black Kite blocked the IP for personal attacks. This was upheld by Huon who described the IP's posting of evidence as "harassment." Boing! said Zebedee rejected another appeal by the IP and revoked talk page access. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:120.17.117.112 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:120.18.96.198 Ymblanter had twice before called for Cathry to be banned for using the wrong reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2_May_2014_Odessa_clashes&diff=607621037&oldid=607618104#Protected_edit_request_on_7_May_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ymblanter&diff=next&oldid=689818306 Tryptofish called for a site ban of Cathry. This was supported by RickinBaltimore, Jytdog, Legacypac, Kingofaces43, Ivanvector, Geogene, Rhinopias, and My_name_continues_to_not_be_dave. Softlavendar opposed, noting that the requirements for the banning policy had not been met. Cyberpower678 upheld the majority vote and issued a site ban. RickinBaltimore then removed a list of MEDRS sources from Cathry's talk page. Cathry was combative and quick to make accusations without evidence, but the same can be said for several of the other players involved in this. Side drama: Back in July 2016, Only In Death and Alexbrn accused David Tornheim of being "extremely problematic, time-consuming and pov-pushing" and causing "prolonged friction in the community." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=732061891&oldid=732060770 In other drama, Arthur Rubin lost his admin rights for refusing to back up his accusations against The Rambling Man with diffs. Asking for diffs usually gets you blocked for "battleground" behavior, but TRM must have more protection than Arthur Rubin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur_Rubin#Preliminary_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur_Rubin/Evidence

MelanieN accused TheTimesAreAChanging of "harassing SPECIFICO" for pointing out SPECIFICO's tendentious behavior. Drmies and Dennis Brown immediately agreed that TheTimesAreAChanging should be sanctioned for this before GoldenRing noticed that MelanieN had stripped out TheTimesAreAChanging's evidence from her quotations. MelanieN claimed this was for "brevity" and continued pressing for TheTimesAreAChanging to be punished. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#TheTimesAreAChanging_is_still_harassing_SPECIFICO Hat tip to TDA for noticing this. https://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1950 https://archive.is/VPdhX

Rachel Helps (BYU) submitted the article for Cynthia B. Lee to Did You Know. Keyakakushi46 responded "Hahaha, you can't be serious" and nominated the same article for deletion claiming "The person is not notable and the article is mostly a collection of minor details about personal life." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cynthia_B._Lee&diff=prev&oldid=806707056 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Articles_for_deletion/Cynthia_B._Lee What happened next was even more obnoxious. Four days later, with no warnings, no evidence, and no further activity by Keyakakushi46, Alex Shih indefinitely blocked Keyakakushi46 "because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia." Yamla rejected Keyakakushi46's appeal with a form letter that showed that Yamla had not bothered to read the appeal. MSGJ rejected Keyakakushi46's next appeal, a line-by-line rebuttal to Yamla's form letter and Alex Shih's extended commentary, on the grounds that it is "inappropriate" and "reinforces the need for the block." Keyakakushi46 appealed again, asking for someone to say something to show that they had read and understood what had happened. Boing! said Zebedee revoked their talk page access without further comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keyakakushi46 Part of Alex Shih's commentary was that Keyakakushi46 had once presented evidence to ANI of Volunteer Marek using personal attacks. That case started when Rævhuld, a self-described leftist and LGBT campaigner, had reported Volunteer Marek to ANI for calling him alt-right. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Only In Death all agreed that it was proper to call Rævhuld alt-right, like it's not disruptive to call someone a Nazi. Rævhuld began removing personal attacks from Volunteer Marek's comments and throwing templates around, leading to a block and a proposed indef from GoldenRing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive962#Personal_attack_and_character_assassination

Slashdot has an article about Wikipedia and all of the comments are people bitching about the admins. It's glorious. https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/11/08/1120224/nearly-all-of-wikipedia-is-written-by-just-1-percent-of-its-editors

Two users were indeffed for essentially no reason. 1: Mastcell indefinitely blocked Hidden Tempo for reverting a possible BLP violation and calling the source a "Trump hater." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hidden_Tempo#Blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=802637894#Unblock_request_at_User_talk:Hidden_Tempo Thucydides411 and Mandruss noted that Mastcell had not provided evidence of any misbehavior by Hidden Tempo since his last sanction. Cjhard, D.Creish, Darouet, Darwinian Ape, and Lepricavark agreed. The block was endorsed by Alanscottwalker, Begoon, Drmies, Ealdgyth, Floquenbeam, Fyddlestix, TheGracefulSlick, Ivanvector, Johnuniq, Just Chilling, Jytdog, MrX, Mjolnirpants, NorthBySouthBaranof, Objective3000, RickinBaltimore, Specifico, Softlavender, SpacemanSpiff, Swarm, ValarianB, and Valeince. Hidden Tempo was community banned and the closing admin denounced the dissenters. > arguments used by those for unblocking were suspect. The closers took a particularly dim view of arguments that cited a lack of evidence, as well as standalone "time served" arguments. 2: Berean Hunter indefinitely blocked 12-year veteran editor Nfitz for asking the admins to remove an IP block that affected a large number of Canadian mobile devices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nfitz#October_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2605:8D80:6A5:1F95:3CF0:DD78:B88C:5C3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=808861080&oldid=808835034#Block_review Alex Shih, Sitush, and Swarm popped into Nfitz's talk page to gravedance and pile on insults. Ad Orientem, Beyond My Ken, Begoon, Cullen, Johnuniq, Number57, Dennis Brown, SpacemanSpiff, and Swarm endorsed the block.

MrX reported Thucydides411 to AE and slatersteven reported Thucydides411 to ANI for reminding Marek of his history of meatpuppetry after Marek brought up a past sanction of Thucydides411. SPECIFICO, Power~enwiki, and My very best wishes called for Thucydides to be site-banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thucydides411 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Thucydides411 An IP droppped this on Thucydides411's talk page: Wikipediametric mailinglist: alleged cabal tactics and stalking of editors, 2009 https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikipediametric_mailinglist:_alleged_cabal_tactics_and_stalking_of_editors,_2009 > "My Very Best Wishes" is Hodja Nasreddin is Biophys. Everytime you read Biophys on those pages that's Wishes. Awilley, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Galobtter removed this information as "trolling". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thucydides411&diff=809917706&oldid=809916810

Dysklyver had a "countering systemic bias" infobox with a picture of Wikipedia's mascot in a bikini. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Den_Jentyl_Ettien_Avel_Dysklyver&diff=810832628&oldid=810820662 Carrite complained about this when Dysklyver ran for ArbCom. Ritchie333 then decided to be the morality police and changed the image on Dysklyver's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Candidates/A_Den_Jentyl_Ettien_Avel_Dysklyver/Questions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Den_Jentyl_Ettien_Avel_Dysklyver&diff=810926669&oldid=810896096 So Wikipedia has Iran-style morality police now.

Did Adolph Hitler state that he was Christian, or did he claim to be Christian? What's the difference? Does it matter? An IP noted that "claimed" is discouraged by Wikipedia's WP:SAID manual of style, and tried to change this to "stated." The IP also removed Goebbels from a list of "militant anti-Christians." > 21:03, 25 November 2017‎ 2601:982:8200:4790:3c54:492b:bc0c:be05 (talk)‎ . . (190,307 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Undid revision 811989982 by Beyond My Ken (talk) The wording "claimed" doesn't conform to Wikipedia policy WP:SAID and Goebbels made comments favoring Christ in his private dairy.) (undo) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler&diff=812072996&oldid=812061001 (a picture from Goebbels's dairy is provided) Beyond My Ken threatened to block the IP for making this change. > noope, he said it publicly, but there;'s no ecidence that he was, so it's a claim - do not change again unless you want to be blocked from editing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler&diff=812095024&oldid=812072996 So, it's standard Wikipedia: lose an argument, threaten to block the other editor. For what it's worth, the Nazi Party famously adopted the slogan Kinder, Küche, Kirche (Family, Kitchen, and Church), had the slogan Gott Mit Uns on their belt buckles, and had its own church, the Deutsche Christen. This does not speak for every individual within the party, but the party generally claimed to be Christian.

Pincrete is WP:OWNing and scrubbing the page for the Taliban front organization Cage Prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CAGE_(organisation)#WP:OR_and_misrepresentation_of_sources

https://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-short-timeline-of-wiki-scandals-in.html A Short Timeline of Wiki-Scandals in 2007 to Early 2008. Highlights: Essjay faked his credentials WMF hires Carolyn "DUI" Doran Professor Taner Akcam arrested after someone called him a terrorist on WP Larry Sanger says WP is broken, launches Citizendium Barberio calls OTRS a censorship board

>>331393 Amazing. More proof the religious fundies have discovered how to push through their sexism and censorship by masking it in Social Justice language.

Bookworm2828 created a page in 2009 for Wilkie Bard, a vaudeville singer from the turn of the 20th century. Bookworm created the page with an infobox. In fact, "Infobox" was in the edit summary of the first version of the page. Cassianto killed the inbox, claiming that the info was "Misleading, ugly bloat." Dynamic IPs from a few different ranges tried to revert back from Cassianto's preferred version to the version with the infobox. Cassianto called in meatpuppets Sagaciousphil, Drmies, and John to protect the page, block the IPs, and accuse the IPs of vandalism. Admin tools were used to uphold one editor's preferred version in a trivial little content dispute over whether or not to have an infobox on an obscure page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilkie_Bard&oldid=321050014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.132.229.177 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/184.164.157.67 When Cassianto first tried to use John as a meatpuppet, John saw through it and threatened Cassianto with a block. Someone changed his mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John#Slow_burn_edit_war_from_IP_hopping_troll

>>331407 I pasted the wrong first link. That goes to Bookworm's first version. It was supposed to be the page history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilkie_Bard&offset=&limit=500&action=history

A couple of users have been holding up attempts to create a page for Oleg Atbashian. >>329502 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oleg_Atbashian Winged Blades of Godrick claimed that Wikipedia does not allow any coverage of a person unless there is a biographical article dedicated to that person alone. He doesn't count the twenty different news articles establishing Atbashian's notability as one of several activists, and he wants the number of references cut down so that no one reading the page can tell how obviously notable Atbashian is at a glance. Justlettersandnumbers demanded the removal of all information about Atbashian's activist groups, calling them "irrelevant" on a page about the political activist who founded these groups.

The Wilkie Bard infobox drama continues. >>331407 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrillLyle&diff=prev&oldid=813289441#Wilkie_Bard https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&diff=813283594&oldid=813282858#Let_it_go BrillLyle jumped into the ring to revert Cassianto who is jumping down everyone's throat while a miniature circus spontaneously appeared on his talk page. Ritchie333 blocked Cassianto for going to 3RR to remove a personal attack by BrillLyle that was eventually revdelled. Iridescent appeared on Cassianto's talk page to tell him to back off. Yngvadottir appeared on BrillLyle's talk page to tell him to back off, and BrillLyle is offended. > So let me get this straight, Cassianto can personally attack me, tell me to F off, call me an idiot. He can control what is on his Talk page but I am not allowed to do the same. Every interaction is hostile and angry and objectionable. So it ceases even becoming about the actual editing. John is trying to calm everyone down.

Tablet reporter Yair Rosenberg on Wikipedia's approach to a subject that he has written articles about: > Wow, this is incredibly awful: there is an attempt on Wikipedia to delete the article "Anti-Semitism in the (UK) Labour party" and memory hole the extremely well-documented recent instances of Jew hatred there https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/939643693899898880 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antisemitism_in_the_Labour_Party Rosenberg continues: > In April, 100 of the 229 UK Labour members of parliament *denounced their own party* for failing to confront anti-Semitism in its ranks … Now some Wikipedians are trying to claim that such anti-Semitism is fake news. So a journalist makes an emotional claim of fact using a popular narrative. We looove picking those apart. CTRL-F "fake": no matches. The first words of TFD's opening are three different arguments: > This article lacks notability and is an attack page recently created. That's three different arguments. Many of the 'delete' opinions suggest merging the content into the pages Chakrabarti Inquiry and Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. It's not what he says it is. Regardless, the AfD closed with no consensus.

Mark Bernstein continued to flout his GG topic ban and was blocked for a year for editing on the Zoe Quinn talk page. http://archive.is/AmvQA#selection-791.0-790.10 >You're prohibited from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Quinn's biography certainly counts even if it were construed as narrow as possible. In addition, you linked to Quinn's book that has Gamergate in the title. On a Talkpage of somebody who's name appears on Gamergate controversy exactly 40 times not counting references, who was one of the primary targets of Gamergate according to most RS, and who wrote a book about Gamergate. The topic ban violation is pretty obvious. There have been a number of edits you've made to pages in a gray area, where I extended the benefit of the doubt. This is not one of them. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for Birth Control says that the rhythm method has a success rate of 76% in typical use, 95%-99.7% in perfect use. rtc claims that the source for the upper figure describes only a specific combination of techniques called the symptothermal method, and the upper figure should be 97%. Doc James disagreed about the interpretation of the source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birth_control&type=revision&diff=815288252&oldid=815168538 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birth_control#Ref_says_0.4 So rtc is arguing that the rythym method is not as reliable as Wikipedia claims that it is. JzG saw that the discussion was about the rythym method and jumped in to accuse rtc of bad faith and ridicule what JzG assumed to be rtc's Catholic religion. > This is pretty pointless. It seems to me, as an outsider, that the intent is to obscure the fact that Vatican Roulette does not work, and is supported as a form of birth control only by religious groups, for that reason. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC) rtc is confused by JzG's reaction and clarifies his position of what he thinks the source says. JzG then reported rtc to to ANI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rtc_and_birth_control > Context: "fertility awareness methods" of birth control are advocated almost exclusively by religious groups, as they have a high failure rate. User rtc is trying to include special pleading about how they are really not a lottery after all as long as you use multiple techniques. So far he has tried edit warring, condescension[19] and WP:POINTy tagging[20][21]. Numerous other editors are reverting the changes, including Doc James, who I think we're all aware is medically qualified. I think a topic ban is needed. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC) After rtc reveals himself to be nonreligous, and no one on Wikipedia should be forced into revealing their religious beliefs or lack thereof, BaseballBugs and Nagualdesign ridiculed rtc for Catholicism. JzG called for rtc to be topic banned from birth control, gaining the support of Beyond My Ken, Jytdog, Mjollnirpants, Roxy the dog, SarekOfVulcan, David Eppstein, Marianna251, Flyer22 Reborn, and Only in death does duty end. fish&karate, GreenMeansGo, Cjhard, and Tornado chaser opposed sanctions because the ANI was made in bad faith, was full of false charges, and included little to no evidence of misconduct by rtc. rtc gained no support for a proposal to warn JzG against making false claims and blocking someone with whom they are in a content dispute.

NeilN tries to dox a user Remember that IP from >>330348 ? NeilN is demanding that they register from an account that can be tied to their real-life identity. The only reason that Wikipedia would need that information is to harm the user offline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.198.247.231#January_2018

Thought you guys might be interested in this. http://ggwiki.deepfreeze.it/index.php?title=Wikipedia The Wiki is back! Permanently, this time.

Encyclopedia Dramatica forces out Zaiger They accuse Zaiger of embezzling from the site's hosting fund and "driving away most of the technically competent staff members in 2014." https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Zaiger#Zaiger_tries_to_sell_ED_for_meth_money_and_gets_kicked_out

From TDA, Five of the Best Examples of Left-wing Bias on Wikipedia in 2017 http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/01/five-of-the-best-examples-of-left-wing-bias-on-wikipedia-in-2017/ Summary: 1. Instructor at Berkeley sending students on anti-Trump editing spree 2. Burying CNN’s Blackmail controversy >>330959 and other scandals at the network 3. Removing evidence backing James Damore’s Google Viewpoint Diversity memo and attacking the memo’s supporters 4. Downplaying Antifa’s violent far-left tendencies >>331121 5. Enacting a “purge” of media sources critical of Russia hacking narrative >>330315

Crawiki raised a poorly informed question on Talk:Antisemitism and got this response from the established editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism#Antisemitism_and_anti-zionism > C'mon, don't be an idiot, use your brain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC) > You can't be fucking serious, Crawiki (…) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC) With no real opposition to his position because nobody explained why he was wrong, Crawiki removed an apparent logical error that was cited to a BBC article but was not supported by the source that the BBC had cited to make this claim and that may have been overridden by an update to Saudi immigration policy since 2004. Crawiki edit warred to remove Malik's curse words and was reverted by RolandR, Ponyo, and NeilN, who blocked Crawiki 12 hours for disruptive editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism&diff=824353269&oldid=824317739 We've seen Wikipedians edit other users' comments before without being warned or sanctioned. >>329516 >>330041 >>330457 where NeilN deletes several users' comments and talk pages and issues blocks while involved. >>330638 >>330645 After his block was removed, Crawiki reported "Apparent verbal abuse at Antisemitism" to ANI and got nowhere. Iridescent cited the content dispute as a deciding factor in the policy question, Grandpallama cursed him out again, and both Iridescent and NeilN said that users are not allowed to impose their own personal civility standards on others, which they are going to immediately forget the next time they see something that is offensive to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive975#Apparent_verbal_abuse_at_Antisemitism

Wiki Review noticed a familiar name, Calton, on a petition calling for the assassination of President Trump… https://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1995 IT'S A FAKE. > Great. Apparently some asshole has tried to swat me by putting my name on an idiotic petition at the White House web site. https://twitter.com/Calton/status/962190467268882432

The WMF globally banned Abd for undisclosed "legal" reasons. The last message on his talk page before his ban discusses a conflict with Anglo Pyramidologist who he describes as "the puppet master for a sock farm that is at least 200 accounts, and growing." Abd discusses the conflict on his own page where he accused Pyramidologist of being Oliver D. Smith, also known as Atlantid. According to ED, Smith and Vordrak worked together to attack Kiwi Farms. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=17659203&oldid=17657034 http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rationalwiki/anglo-pyramidologist/ https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Oliver_D._Smith In December on Wikiversity Mu301 gave Abd a 1-year block for changing the page on Fringe Science (the study of fringes) to a stub page about Fringe Science (the study of bullshit) while Mu301 was editing the page. Mu301 then indefinitely banned Abd "for persistent, long-term disruption" after Abd appealed his block. Abd appealed this second block and the appeal was denied by Mu301. Mu301 then began deleting Abd's userspace drafts on the grounds that they were "abandoned" because Mu301 had banned him and denied his appeal. https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=1815081&oldid=1811629 Abd was banned from the English Wikipedia in 2011 for block evasion and ignoring a topic ban. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=433842952#Abd

This is a fine collection of examples of "The inmates started running the asylum" - selectively applying rules when it suits them. One particularly damning quote from these people who are above the rest: "consensus is completely advisory in nature"… The question is, how long will the people who pay the bills continue to put up with this nonsense? When will there finally be a "constitution" for Wikipedia that is not "completely advisory in nature"?

> The question is, how long will the people who pay the bills continue to put up with this nonsense? They are probably paying for this nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Our_most_prolific_article_creator_is_(or_was)_a_copyright_violator… > We'll need to discuss how to handle this best. It turns out that User:Dr. Blofeld, who is with 96,000 articles created our most prolific article creator, has in a number of cases (so far early in his career, more research is needed) created blatant copyright violations. Who could have guessed that a Bond villain would be evil? In the old days the Internet generally had the attitude of not caring about copyright, just adding anything and only taking it down when they got a letter. 96,000 articles ago, Blofeld would not have been the only one.

NorthBySouthBaranof thinks that this is civil behavior: > Did I trigger you? Can't handle it when someone calls you what you are? Sad! Maybe don't make racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia and then start ridiculous ANI threads when people call you on your bullshit. I don't apologize to white supremacists and if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up on ANI. Oh wait <snerk>. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D hid the comment in a RPA block and reported to ANI. NorthBySouthBaranof told Harrison "gtfo" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&diff=828703362&oldid=828702078 and PeterTheFourth, a meatpuppet account created to back up NorthBySouthBaranof in Gamergate, reverted Harrison. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&diff=828701279&oldid=828700085 At an ANI thread, North continues with personal attacks against Harrison https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof > Pardon me if I smell a rat here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC) > Again, competence is required and you're demonstrating that you don't have the competence to successfully read edit summaries and diffs. (…) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Guy Macon joins in: > WHOOSH!! That's the sound of the point going right over your head. When someone writes "I suspect we have a competence is required situation here", they are not claiming the we have a policy requiring competence. They are saying that they suspect that you lack competence and that in their opinion competence is required - a view that is held by many Wikipedia editors. –Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Power~enwiki and Edgar181 call for Harrison to be indeffed. > Jamesharrison2014 appears to be on a crusade against Baranof, likely due to their long-running dispute at Kelli Ward. He's doing a very bad job of it, and is probably risking WP:BOOMERANG sanctions if he keeps this up much longer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) > Based on Jamesharrison2014's persistent IDHT behavior, it is likely that his consistent dispruption will continue until he is either indefinitely blocked or topic banned from areas of American politics. – Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC) And on his talk page, Spartaz repeatedly accused Harrison of being a sockpuppet without evidence.

TonyBalloni blocked ScratchMarshall for a week for reporting Acroterion to ANI for abuse of administrator tools. How did this happen? First, Scratchmarshall added material to the David Hogg page to refute the "crisis actor" conspiracy theory that is going around and is probably true with the preponderance of evidence that he was coached and promoted, but that is beside the point. Scratchmarshall tried to debunk the theory. > Block, Eliana (21 February 2018). "VERIFY: Here's why David Hogg and other Florida students aren't 'crisis actors'". WUSA (TV). "All over social media people are sharing a screenshot of a yearbook. A tweet from Laguna Beach Antifa with a yearbook photo claiming Hogg actually went to school in California and "always wanted to work for CNN and be an actor." There's also an interview of Hogg on a Los Angeles CBS Station back in August. Conspiracy Theorists say it's proof he's not from Florida. To Verify our researchers tracked down the source of that yearbook photo and found this video posted by a Douglas student. That video shows the book's cover, and you'll see it's actually be from Marjory Douglas High School in Florida. As for that video from California? Our team found Hogg's YouTube "vlog" which shows he was on vacation in Cali at the time." Robert McClenon refused to answer ScratchMarshall's question of how this violates BLP and instead closed the discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_161#Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)#Business_Insider Acroterion revdeled that comment and blocked ScratchMarshall for 48 hours on a clearly false accusation of a BLP violation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScratchMarshall#March_2018 MrX reported ScratchMarshall to ANI for "subtly pushing far-right propaganda and conspiracy theories in the style of a concern troll" because he cited conservative news sources and mentioned having used an image board. Mjollnirpants, Objective3000, Doug Weller, Flyer22, Jorm, Cullen, and TheValeyard called for action against ScratchMarshall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#ScratchMarshall_promoting_conspiracy_theories NeilN imposed a topic ban on ScratchMarshall against editing any BLP. > You are indefinitely topic-banned from editing in the BLP topic area, specifically "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScratchMarshall#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban When his block wore off, ScratchMarshall appealed his topic ban at AE and reported Acroterion to ANI for improperly crying BLP to block him and revdel comments that were reliably sourced and did not violate BLP in any way. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Acroterion_has_abused_admin_powers_and_they_should_be_revoked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_ScratchMarshall At ANI Mongo called for "a lengthy block" for "forum shopping." NeilN, Beyond My Ken, and Dlohcierekim agreed, and TonyBallioni blocked ScratchMarshall for a week. At AE Sandstein called ScratchMarshall's appeal "confusing", D4iNa4 supported the BLP block, as did NeilN, TonyBallioni, Jayron32, Thryduulf, and Boing! said Zebedee. SarekOfVulcan is the lone voice of logic. > I don't see a BLP violation in those suppressed diffs. What do you think is the vio? –SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D reported NorthBySouthBaranof to ANI for a personal attack against another user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof Beyond My Ken, Edgar181, Guy Macon, and Power~enwiki insulted Harrison and called for him to be banned, so Spartaz banned Harrison as a "sockpuppet" with no evidence whatsoever. So Harrison swears at them and promises to sock for real, and the admins pat each other on the back for a job well done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamesharrison2014#March_2018

>>331649 >https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Acroterion_has_abused_admin_powers_and_they_should_be_revoked >https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_ScratchMarshall These two links appear to have been scrubbed from wikipedia.

WOW, Beyond My Ken has been pushing his anti-cleanup tags obsession for over a decade! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=144075845#User:Ed_Fitzgerald_relocating_clean-up_templates >at least one of the ways that evolutionary changes come about is by people trying things out and other people taking a look and giving the change a fair shake You'd think after ten years, multiple AN/I discussions, and countless editors telling him to stop doing this, it's been "given a fair shake" already and he can finally drop the stick…

Longtime user KoshVorlon was sitebanned after Beeblebrox brought him to ANI for telling paid editors that they could post promotional materials "as an article, if there are Reliable sources to back it up." What crossed the line was one edit to Jazz Jennings to say that someone was "born" rather than "assigned at birth." Writ Keeper, Black Kite, and Davey2010 seized on this issue to join the chorus demanding a full site ban. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beeblebrox#Blanking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#Somebody_please_talk_to_Kosh_Vorlon_because_I_just_can%E2%80%99t_do_it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jazz_Jennings&diff=prev&oldid=835104680 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jazz_Jennings#Bold_change

Scjessey, SummerPhD, and Specifico were tag teaming against an IP to include a BLP-violating line describing the Center for Immigration Studies as a hate group. NeilN blocked the IP and taunted him. 331dot and Huon upheld the block. After Netoholic reported Scjessey for edit warring, BLP violations, and clearly not trying to hold to a neutral point of view, MrX called for a boomerang and Volunteer Marek chimed in on the talk page to support Scjessey. Spartaz closed the report with no action following the advice of GoldenRing, Bishonen, and Fish_and_Karate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier#Center_for_Immigration_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive229#Scjessey

University College London has been hosting the London Conference on Intelligence whose attendees include members of the alt-right. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/01/31/euge-j31.html With this information, Doug Weller opened a Fringe Theories Noticeboard post with the shouting headline Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_59#Racism_is_creeping_back_into_mainstream_science_%E2%80%93_we_have_to_stop_it Alexbrn called for "editors wanting to help in this area." Mjolnirpants accused Bus Stop of "actively defending racism on this noticeboard" for taking the position that people should wait for a problem to exist before rallying troops against it. Calthinus took credit for removing references to Richard Lynn from Wikipedia articles because he doesn't like Lynn's opinions.

At today's ANI, new user Kingces95 committed these great sins: Linking to Wikisource's page for the Nunes memo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nunes_memo&diff=next&oldid=841335058&diffmode=source Adding "allegedly" to Wikipedia's claim that Nunes lied https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nunes_memo&diff=prev&oldid=841263874&diffmode=source Including the full text of a Nunes claim that Wikipedia said was a lie https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nunes_memo&diff=prev&oldid=840970321&diffmode=source Bullrangifer, Aquillion, Diannaa, Volunteer Marek, Objective3000, Casprings, William M. Connolley, MrX, Johnuniq, and NeilN edit warred with Kingces95 to remove his edits, who restored them and kept editing the page. This created the justification for Casprings to bring Kingces to ANI for edit warring and POV. The same team plus NorthBySouthBaranof, Power~enwiki, JzG, SarekOfVulcan, and Jytdog called for him to be topic banned and he was indeffed after refusing to submit to a rigged process.

Craig Murray may have caught a paid editing crew operating under the name Philip Cross. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/ > Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel. > What is particularly interesting is that “Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross.

Wikiproject Christianity's newsletter for April 2018 said that "The death of Billy Graham on February 21 was a profound loss." Future Perfect at Sunrise edit warred with Lepricavark to remove this language and then protected the newsletter as his preferred version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Outreach/April_2018&action=history jps reported this to ANI as unacceptable behavior by… Lionelt, the original author of the newsletter and not one of the edit war participants. Bbb23, JzG, and Only In Death supported Future Perfect and jps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Taking_a_position_on_whether_Billy_Graham's_death_was_a_%22profound_loss%22 Swarm blocked Tarage for a day for using the word "vandalism" to describe Future Perfect's actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarage#April_2018 Arbcom near-unanimously declined to hear a case about what should have been a quick desysopping. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=837088275&oldid=836930483

Sir Joseph took Specifico to AE for denouncing the "unwashed Hasidic Jews" who read the Algemeiner. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AE#SPECIFICO_2 Specifico, MrX, and Objective3000 defended this as merely putting words in Donald Trump's mouth, a violation of both BLP and NPOV. My Very Best Wishes claimed it was not antisemitic. Tryptofish called for leniency for Sir Joseph for daring to report this. NeilN called the report "a waste of time as any reader not actively looking to take offense" and threatened Sir Joseph with a warning. RegentsPark also said there was nothing wrong with this statement and called for giving Sir Joseph a warning. Compare this to what happened to Franzboas. >>330693

Cullen328, Ritchie333, Davey2010, and Boing! said Zebedee ganged up with Hijiri88 to indefinitely ban Dream Focus by allowing Hijiri to stalk Dream Focus and start fights with him wherever he edited, refusing to impose an interaction ban between them, blocking Dream Focus for complaining about being stalked, unblocking DF with the unreasonable condition that he stop complaining, and then indeffing him and revoking his talk page access for complaining about the one-sidedness of that condition and the ongoing stalking by Hijiri88. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dream_Focus#Regarding_my_case_at_the_Administrators_Noticeboard_Incidents https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=701

An update to the story of Captain Occam >>329517 After Captain Occam was unbanned, Beyond My Ken went to at least three different articles where Captain Occam was topic-banned and left this warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adnan_Oktar&diff=prev&oldid=760025770 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)&diff=prev&oldid=760025977 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lynn&diff=prev&oldid=760026906 > == Fair warning == > Editors of this article are given fair warning that Captain Occam, a creationist who was site-banned by ArbCom due to his editing in the "race & intelligence" topic area has been inexplicably released from his site ban by the Committee after an appeal, and has expressed in this thread his desire to "correct" the problems his perceives in this article. Captain Occam is a POV warrior whoae editing must be closely monitored for bias. Captain Occam, who denies being a creationist, sent BMK a private email to ask him to stop doing this. BMK ordered Occam to stop sending him emails. Occam sent another email laughing him off. BMK reported Occam to AE. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=834224739#Captain_Occam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Captain_Occam#Notice Occam was indeffed for using email to canvas other editors in another situation. Nothing was done about BMK's behavior.

Wikipedia locked its article on New York Times editor Sarah Jeong to prevent any mention of the controversy of her racist tweets. The group edit-warring to keep the controversy out included Innisfree987, Anarchyte, Citing, Openlydialectic, Drmies, and Abecedare. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Jeong&offset=&limit=500&action=history

>>332177 there was an unsuccessful attempt to delete her article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jeong

>>332180 >>332177 Wikipedia's administrators have begun to clear their political opposition out of the Sarah Jeong dispute through their usual pattern of finding any misdemeanor behavior that can be used to justify claiming that the other side is "disruptive" or "not here" for an indefinite block while allowing their side to get away with anything. Nergaal, a veteran user with over 50,000 edits since 2007, was was blocked by Oswah with an appeal declined by NeilN for trying to start an AfD to delete the Sarah Jeong page under the BLP1E rule. He was then topic-banned by Abecedare for describing the activity of Drmies as "repeated abusive, hasty push of personal agenda by editor who clearly is breaking WP:BADNAC", was blocked by Paul Erik for reopening the AfD after Drmies closed it, and then indeffed by Ian Thomson as "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" for asking why he was blocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nergaal#August_2018_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jeong https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Jeong&diff=853800587&oldid=853794247 ZinedineZidane98 argued with Gamaliel and XOR'easter on the AfD, opened an AfD for the page on Jeong's book The Internet of Garbage that XOR'easter and Softlavender had created in retaliation for the argument, and removed comments by Openlydialectic that included personal attacks against him. Bishonen blocked ZinedineZidane98 for a month. ZinedineZidane98 restored the comments and appealed the block because it was out of policy and he had undone what he had been blocked for, so Courcelles indeffed him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZinedineZidane98#August_2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage&type=revision&diff=853723238&oldid=853722806&diffmode=source ESparky, a self-declared paid editor for singer Emily Perry who claims that his job had nothing to do with Sarah Jeong, was interrogated by Jytdog and then indeffed by Kudpung for removing his "paid" template after he ended his contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESparky#WP:PAID_violation Wookian was topic-banned by Abecedare for the "BLP violation" of bringing a Wall Street Journal editorial to the Sarah Jeong talk page and saying "simply quoting the tweets makes her critics case for them" and for quoting one of the tweets on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wookian#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abecedare#Hi,_did_you_block_me_due_to_a_misunderstanding? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jeong&type=revision&diff=854073731&oldid=854072997 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jeong&diff=854078933&oldid=854078622 Abecedare gave a 24-hour block to Openlydialectic who had been defending Sarah Jeong. Abecedare repealed the block due to "feedback" from an undisclosed backchannel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Openlydialectic#August_2018_3

>>332185 Meanwhile on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong > Neither CNN nor BBC criticized her. Only the conservative/Russian (is there any difference at this point?) did. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) >It's okay to criticize groups of people who have been structurally oppressive, including white people, men, and police. It is not a personal attack to say so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) > Allow me to explain the difference between personal attacks and speech criticizing systemic oppression. "Fuck Wookian" is a personal attack, while "Fuck the Police" is a great song. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) > Oppose per GorillaWarfare. WP:UNDUE is policy and it doesn't matter how many sockpuppets show up, that policy isn't changing. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC) > My opinion is that making claims of clear racial animus is a BLP violation.You have made it abundantly clear to me that these tweets belong nowhere near Wikipedia, including the talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC) > You characterize acceptance of her tweets as "an ethereal, highly POV universe", I characterize it as a reality where people are allowed to speak out against structurally oppressive groups of people even when they do so in exaggerated ways. But in the end it doesn't matter what we think, that's what reliable sources are for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC) > The tweets should be omitted because they would mislead readers by presenting a false picture of the subject—a false picture that could only be corrected with copious explanations that would make the topic WP:UNDUE for this short article. Try again in three months if something other than indignation has actually happened. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC) > If you don't see why "these messy fruits of intersectional social justice" is soapboxing, then you may not be competent to edit such a contentious topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC) > oppose this is where the initial storm of protest arose as reported by subsequent high quality sources. This is what the content says - "sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media". Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) > Again it is remarkable that no one calling for the tweets to be quoted has offered to a) post quotes of the kind of tweets to which she was responding, and b) something about their number and the context of harrassment online and how women respond to it. The content proposal fails to do, and implementing it would be a violation of NPOV and doing that on a BLP would be a BLP violation. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC) > Several, including The Guardian, Vox, and CJR, explicitly paint the controversy as a bad-faith trolling campaign, which should also be mentioned somehow. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC) > Oppose: "widespread coverage" elides the issue, which was a backlash in right-wing or right-leaning media to the tweets, which many commentators (as cited in secondary-source coverage) argued were deceptively taken out of context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) (edited 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)) > Both of those sources specify conservative media: BBC says "conservative critics"; CNN says "right-wing … right-wingers, people that identify with the white supremacist ideology". Also, please do not bold a "support" or "oppose" unless it is your own !vote (I have unbolded above). Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC) > NOTE: The Daily Caller has alerted its readers about the article and is encouraging people to fight for inclusion of her tweets, etc., in the wiki article: [27]. So this article definitely needs more eyes/admins/protection, and weeding out (or blocking) of SPAs, newbies, and POV warriors. Softlavender (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is getting shit on by Twitter followers for dissing Jeremy Corbyn and Hamas. https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/1027606662386016258 https://archive.is/lnkBe Context: Corbyn was recently exposed as a long-time terrorist supporter. A tabloid had to run the story because the mainstream papers don't think that this kind of thing is news. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6995489/jeremy-corbyns-anti-semite-crisis-dossier/ Background on what Corbyn supports: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm https://archive.is/xyi3 What makes this extra interesting is that Wales's own expressed point of view would not be welcome on Wikipedia and certainly not around his new friends at the Guardian. There may be consequences for him. Corbyn is being protected by Black Kite… https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Joseph#Corbyn and Andy Dingley, who says that the allegation that Corbyn laid a wreath for the terrorists who attacked the Olympic games in Munich is "not notable" and "undue" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#allegation_about_tunisia

A couple of weeks ago, Wikia / Fandom administrators banned the use of the term "SJW" sitewide. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/07/30/fan-trusted-fandom-briefly-bans-term-sjw-from-its-wiki-sites/ Hours ago: Crappy Games Wiki and Awful Movies Wiki are to be closed by Fandom VTSF for "Pushing GamerGate Thought". https://np.red*dit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/97aj87/censorship_fandominaction_crappy_games_wiki_and/ Same day: Fandom, also known as Wikia, has fired nearly all of their editorial and video staffers https://np.red*dit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/97boq1/news_fandom_also_known_as_wikia_has_fired_nearly/ so… something happened. And about that Munich allegation >>332195, it could be bullshit. A blogger found a book that says most of the terrorists were buried in Libya, so of course it's not a reliable source. https://evolvepolitics.com/there-were-8-munich-terrorists-none-are-buried-at-the-tunis-cemetery-that-jeremy-corbyn-visited/

GorillaWarfare accused Kudpung of misogyny for pressuring Katherine Maher to explain why Wikipedia hired a reputation management (paid editing) company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-08-30/News_and_notes Fram called that a personal attack and demanded that GorillaWarfare remove it. GorillaWarfare refused and restored the personal attack when Fram removed it, so Fram blocked her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks,_a_block_and_an_unblock:_review_requested Cullen328, Calton, Courcelles start the gaslighting by accusing Fram of "escalating", demanding self-reflection by Fram, and claiming it was the worst block in recent memory. Softlavender, Thryduulf, and JzG echo them. Ivanvector claimed that there was no personal attack, and Mjolnirpants claims that Kudpung's writing "sure as hell looks like misogyny. SlimVirgin gets the vapors: > if we've reached the point where women can't offer the view that something on this site is sexist, we're in worse shape than I thought. SarahSV (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC) K.e.coffman, Alex Shih, and Only in Death were honest enough to agree that accusing Kudpung of misogyny was a personal attack. Nick, 28bytes, and Sadads called for Fram to lose his admin powers. Lourdes recognized that GorillaWarfare's attack was part of a long-term harassment campaign against Kudpung and called for her to be indeffed if she continued.

Some unnamed lunatic at the Wikimania conference in Cape Town demanded that a user named Romaine be banned from Wikimedia events because he once was in the same room as that person to return something to a third party. Romaine makes it sound like an obviously fabricated cause, but that's the defendant's case. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2018-July/008566.html Apparently, James Alexander of the Trust and Safety Council told him not to come back and then gaslit the entire wikimania-l by claiming that it was not a punishment. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2018-July/008587.html Philip Kopetzky demands that all white males be banned from the discussion. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2018-July/008645.html Amir Ladsgroup demands that moderators ban Dhaval S. Vyas for pointing out that people in the UK think men holding hands is a gay thing whereas it is normal in India. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2018-July/008600.html

Michael Hardy asked AN to blank potentially libelous comments by a user on a two-year-old AfD. > This AfD discussion contains libelous assertions by User:M. A. Bruhn. That user says that certain professors, at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere, are > "co-opt[ing] mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy." Responses from the users: > Is this the same guy that not too long ago should have had the mop removed for incompetence, and is not that same incompetence now being displayed? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC) > My sentiments exactly. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC) > An admin in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory is now floating conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence, for those who disagree with them. This is most troubling. MarnetteD|Talk 14:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive301#Suppression_or_courtesy_blanking_of_an_AfD_page_containing_libelous_material Bishonen then gave Michael Hardy a 48-hour block for saying this: > It is not true that I insulted or personally attacked six other users. I accused them. I called them bullies. They had personally attacked me rather than merely saying they disagree. I defy anyone to deny that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=857276143 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_Hardy#August_2018 Afootpluto called for Michael Hardy to be site-banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AN#Site_Ban_Proposal:_Michael_Hardy Michael Hardy responded to that by calling for Jimbo to shut the site down. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#It's_time_to_euthanize_Wikipedia.

Godotskimp took Mjolnirpants to AE with these accusations: > 14 March 2018 Mpants argues that the journal Intelligence is not a reliable source because he considers it racist. Looking up information about this journal suggests that his comment is a gross perversion of reliable source policy, as the journal appears to be a reputable psychology journal published by Elsevier. See also the last paragraph of Jbhunley's comment here: [21] > 14 May 2018 The background of this diff is that user:Deleet posted a comment describing the current state of research about race and intelligence, including citations to two textbooks published by Cambridge University Press: Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence and Richard Haier's The Neuroscience of Intelligence. Mpants' response is a mixture of personal attacks, such as "I'm sick of dealing with racist bullshit like the comment above yours" (that is, Deleet's comment) and attacks on the credibility of the sources being cited, such as "Look at how cheap those 'textbooks' are (ever seen a college textbook under $180?)" > Essay created on 1 September 2018, a fairly clear violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In an earlier version of the essay, the opinion that races differ in average intelligence was described as a "core belief uniting the various types of nazis". [22] > 5 September 2018 Mpants says that Deleet's being harassed by sockpuppets is good for the project. I understand this topic area has had problems with sockpuppetry in the past, so encouraging more of it is disruptive. Result: "not actionable" according to Sandstein, Ymblanter, and regentspark who calls the evidence a "random collection of edits." Filer indeffed by Courcelles at the urging of Simonm223, Beyond My Ken, and an IP that was blocked for sockpuppeting. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AE#MPants_at_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Godotskimp Simonm223 opened a baseless SPI against the Godotskimp who was found innocent and indeffed anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Deleet/Archive

>>332236 >not actionable This is admins' favorite excuse for not blocking certain editors with a long history of disruptive editing.

Fully disclosed paid editor Dolcevikasf worked with Jytdog for a year to comply with Wikipedia's standards while creating pages for companies he works for, Verastem Oncology and Twist Bioscience. Dolcevikasf submitted a draft of the Verastem article through Articles for Creation and followed Jytdog's advice to include negative news about Verastem. After nobody else said anything for a month, Dolcevikasf moved the article into mainspace and was immediately reported to ANI by Jytdog for "circumventing AfC" and banned by Alex Shih. Robert McClenon reported the draft to Articles for Deletion where two people say it doesn't look that promotional. The process was working and they banned the user because Jytdog threw a fit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dolcevikasf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Verastem_Oncology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Verastem_Oncology

>>332241 >Be fully open about being a shill and follow all the rules >get banned and deleted anyway That'll just encourage others to not disclose and not follow the rules.

>>332252 >>332241 It happened again. Fireice, a ten-year user, fully and properly disclosed his conflict of interest in the area of cryptocurrencies when bringing Jytdog to ANI for combative behavior and requesting a two-way interaction ban. Jytdog, K.e.coffman, Govindaharihari, Beyond My Ken, Roxy the Dog, JzG, and MER-C used that disclosure alone as an excuse to topic-ban him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Asking_for_2-way_no-fault_IBAN_with_User:Jytdog MER-C also topic-banned OSNF2P for proper disclosure of his conflict of interest on the Monero talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OSNF2P

Wikipedia has formally banned Breitbart and offered up Occupy Democrats to pretend that they are being fair, as if they were an equal alternative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#RfC:_Breitbart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Occupy_Democrats

Sagecandor was blocked by Bbb23 as a sock of Cirt after a report by Pudeo who has enough political currency to survive doing this. Other users who have raised the same allegations has been blocked for raising them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cirt

When linking to noticeboards please use a permanent link (View history > click on the date of the edit) because the discussions fall off the noticeboard within days. A permalink makes it easier to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MugyuToChu You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for thinking we're idiots. This is either a sock, or (more likely in this case) a joe job, or a troll. Doesn't matter which one…. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I'm not a sock or a troll. The blocking admin's reason for a permanent block is "You must think we're idiots." If I'm going to be shut down from being able to ever contribute to Wikipedia, could the blocking admin please explain his/her reasoning with logic, rather than emotion? MugyuToChu (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Decline reason: Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia got rid of another dissident editor. Winkelvi removed "fan crust" and "peacock terminology" from the article on Meghan Trainor… https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meghan_Trainor&diff=866635941&oldid=866615330 … which had just been edited a few hours earlier by MaranoFan, who had an interaction ban with Winkelvi. MaranoFan complained to Ritchie333 who indeffed Winkelvi. Winkelvi apologized, claimed not to have checked the edit history, and offered to be topic banned from the page. "If I ever decide to die on a hill in Wikipedia it sure as hell isn't going to be over Meghan Trainor." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Winkelvi#Blocked Following this defense, Ritchie333 brought this to the administrator which acted as they usually do, as sharks out for blood. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AN#Winkelvi Only in death, Nihlus, Mandruss, zchrykng, SS112 endorsed the block as they did not believe that Winkelvi was telling the truth. Floquenbeam went further and demanded a site ban, backed by TonyBalloni, Cullen328, Serial_Number_54129, dlthewave, Swarm, MrX, Softlavendar, Davey2010, and Galobtter. Laser Brain, Tarage, and Iridescent were willing to accept that Winkelvi was innocent but said he should be indeffed anyways. LegacyPac and Snooganssnoogans accused Winkelvi of past "stalking and harassment" of which I don't know the history, but would be relevant to establishing a pattern of behavior. Boing! said Zebedee, who is often at the forefront of these witch hunts, was one of several people who questioned the rush to punish Winkelvi so severely. MONGO opposed the block on the irrelevant grounds that "MaranoFan has long history of disruption, indef block, socking" which there is no sign of MaranoFan doing in this case. The first words of the "fan cruft" that Winkelvi had removed were originally added by Lawrencekhoo. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meghan_Trainor&diff=789862557&oldid=788571592 Atsme noticed that Maranofan had commented in the thread and said that was a violation of their interaction ban with Winkelvi, so 28bytes blocked Maranofan for a month.

The user Peak Debt wrote an article on the cryptocurrency Skycoin that was rejected four times for appearing promotional before it was approved. Peak Debt denied having a conflict of interest. After the article was approved, CNMall41 nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that the news articles about it are from industry publications. These include a news outlet calling the currency a scam and a report of the developers being kidnapped and held for ransom by their Chinese contractors, which would seem to make it notable in my opinion. Peak Debt argued against the deletion so MER-C topic-banned Peak Debt for "gross failure to understand what constitutes a reliable source." Softlavender then struck the comments of every user who read about the AfD in the news and came to argue against deletion, and then got Peak Debt indeffed for "rampant sock/meatpupetting at AfD, and now he is outright trolling." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peak_Debt&oldid=867698212#Conflict_of_interest_disclosure_and_paid_editing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=867755283#Appeal_topic_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skycoin&oldid=867770588

Bbb23 indeffed Obsidi because Softlavender and Simonm223 called him names after he reported MjolnirPants to ANI for an edit dispute involving potentially BLP violating language on the Milo Yiannopoulos article. In an appeal, Obsidi offered to abide by a topic ban from politics, but Guy Macon points out that Softlavender and Simonm223 are still calling him names. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obsidi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#User:MjolnirPants

Hzh brought JzG to ANI for calling something fraudulent in wikitext without a source, which is hoaxing, and then launching into personal attacks against Hzh when asked to provide a source for the claim. The text in dispute regards the warezing site Sci-Hub. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sci-Hub&diff=866704214&oldid=866699418 Jytdog's preferred version: > … the interest of institutional libraries to comply with contracts they sign with publishers through which people with legitimate credentials access the publications, the dangers created by leaked credentials and their fraudulent use. Hzh's preferred version: > … the interest of institutional libraries to comply with contracts they sign with publishers through which people with legitimate credentials access the publications, the issues created by leaked credentials and their unauthorized use. In response to Hzh bringing a complaint to ANI about JzG's personal attacks, Hijiri88, Alexbrn, Calton, Softlavender, and Slatersteven call for a boomerang with Calton accusing Hzh of "Sealioning" for requesting evidence of any bad behavior on his part. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=869119772#User:JzG Hzh is a very prolific editor with over 10,000 contributions to different articles this year, but they are trying to hang him as NOTHERE because he uses the talk page to gain consensus before changing the page, which is what editors are supposed to do. There is a real chance that Hzh will face punishment because of this "consensus" of clearly involved editors who always take the same side as one another.

>>332344 >sealioning The new excuse not to provide evidence for accusations despite Wikipedia policies demanding evidence for accusations.

Kendall-K1 reported Beyond My Ken to ANI for edit-warring over the inclusion of the word "affleunt" on the page for the Riverdale neighborhood of the Bronx page after a previous RFC found "a rough consensus against" the use of this word to describe cities, edit-warring with power~enwiki to keep the new RFC listed in WP:CENT, and banning SMcCandlish from his talk page and insulting him in an edit summary for posting a discretionary sanctions template on his page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=869735754 The result: > This is stupid as hell, once again. Requesting a close. –Tarage (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC) The report was closed by Legacypac after a little more than four hours.

Boing! said Zebedee reported "the aggressive and confrontational approach of Tarage at the AN/ANI boards" to AN and gained support for a 3 month topic ban from the drama boards. Tarage considered that intolerable and flounced off. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=871430648#Tarage New user Chimchongchiggedydo was indeffed for attempting to remove poorly written text on the page Actress that said that "Actress is a term used interchangeably with "actor". MarnetteD edit warred to protect the text, both of them took a my-way-or-the-highway approach on the talk page, and Ad Orientum banned him after Softlavender reported him to ANI as "spectacularly NOTHERE" and "obviously a returning troll or block evader". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=871184016#Editor_has_done_nothing_but_edit_war_against_consensus_on_gender_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chimchongchiggedydo It was all over this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Actress_(disambiguation)&diff=869224868&oldid=860200340 Binksternet says "this edit was trolling" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=prev&oldid= In a discussion of whether White Privilege is controversial, Simonm223 calls Ben Shapiro a white supremacist and MjolnirPants calls Jesse Lee Peterson a white guy in blackface. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_74#White_Privilege Wikipedia now calls Gavin McInnes a white supremacist based on the "consensus" of Simonm223, JzG, Calton, Beyond My Ken, PeterTheFourth, NorthBySouthBaranof, and finally Jytdog citing Vox and Media Matters as RS. Wumbolo called for them to be blocked for violating BLP on the BLP noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=870701040#Gavin_McInnes Boing! said Zebedee, Winged Blades of Godric, and Softlavender needled Arbcom candidate Fred Bauder with questions about past personal scandals. Fred moved their statements off of his questions page and onto the talk page. Boing and Winged Blades edit warred with him over these movements until Boing blocked him. Fred unblocked himself, was reblocked by Iridescent, unblocked himself again, and was emergency desysopped by Maxim. This is now at Arbcom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred_Bauder/Evidence Jytdog looked up another user's phone number and called them over an edit dispute. Not cool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jytdog

>>330041 > TheValeyard appeared on February 4, lectured another user on Wikipedia notability guidelines in his second edit, and was greeted by The Quixotic Potato an hour and a half later. TheValeyard is a confirmed sock of ValarianB. Bbb23 was nice enough to be lenient to a political ally. Emphasis added: > Confirmed. Sock blocked and tagged. Master blocked for one week. Closing.–Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ValarianB/Archive While only blocked for one week, ValarianB quit editing… at least under that name. Also, The Quixotic Potato has been indeffed for threatening to out another editor for leverage in a content dispute. > Continued claim of knowing another editor's real life identity ([4]) when the information is not disclosed anywhere across Wikimedia projects. > Pattern of similar offensive behavior in the previous year ([5]) without seemingly understanding the gravity of this concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Quixotic_Potato#Block_extended_to_indefinite The threat: > On your linkedin profile picture you look younger than I am (I am 30+). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=820338328

Here is a Wikipedia power player's opinion on a major newspaper that happens to be owned by someone other than the Democrats: > just FYI, the Washington Times might look like a reliable source at quick glance, but it isn't. –Floquen'beam (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=872869752&oldid=872869517 It is owned by the Moonies, but it can be compared to the the Christian Science Monitor which is owned by the homeopath movement. Both are known for straight news reporting and in neither case has the ownership greatly affected it.

Wikipedia has a default size for profile images in biographies. Beyond My Ken insists that Wikipedia should go out of its way to set a smaller image size for the biographies of Nazis from WWII, accused everyone else in the discussion of "glorifying Nazis" for disagreeing with him, and edit-warred over the image sizes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eduard_Dietl#Image_size > Oh, and, no, I'm not stopping. Images in infoboxes need to be large enough to easily identify the subject, and no larger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=873778018&oldid=873777970 Other users were changing images sizes at the time. Buster Reynolds increased the image sizes of Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler while making numerous changes to infoboxes in different biographies. Meeepmep and Hohum were also working in the area. FlightTime reported BMK to ANI for his behavior. Future Perfect at Sunrise immediately called for a boomerang, echoed supported by Swarm. JzG accused Tornado Chaser of supporting the glorification of Nazis by FlightTime, Buster Reynolds, Meeepmep, Hohum, and other participants on the talk page, which JzG accepted had happened. Johnuniq called for them to be banned and compared their activity to that of a user who had been spamming Jimbo's talk page with arguments about slavery. BMK then started talking about image sizes to make the discussion about image sizes rather than his behavior, and Swarm closed the thread as the "wrong venue" for FlightTime's report because BMK had been disruptively editing about the content dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=873992653&oldid=873992570#We_have_a_problem

>>332381 Amazing how every time Beyond My Ken is involved in an edit-war against multiple other editors who have talk-page and general MOS/policy consensus, admins DON'T see it as a behavioral problem… despite BMK repeating this behavior over and over and over and over and over…

Tsumikiria and PeterTheFourth were caught lying and misrepresenting sources to make the page for Gab.ai look as bad as possible, so PeterTheFourth took debate opponent Ridiceo to ANI for the high crime of debating him. Ridiceo was site-banned with the support of Volunteer Marek, K.e.coffman, Jorm, Aquillion, wumbolo, Beyond My Ken, Softlavender, Binksternet, oknazevad, and Swarm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#User:Ridiceo

A followup to >>332401 50.107.81.26 reported Tsumikiria for "pushing obvious NPOV violations on Gab article, as well as Antifa article." Doug Weller chastised the IP for calling Tsumikiria a terrorist for being a self-declared member of the terrorist group Antifa. Acroterion and Dlohcierekim threatened the IP with a block for the same. Simonm223 pledged to canvas himself into the Gab article and treat it as a political battleground. NinjaRobotPirate declared the IP to be a sockpuppet based on secret evidence and blocked him for three days. Bishonen closed the thread with a bit of gravedancing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=877462377&oldid=877452665#User:Tsumikiria_SPA_pushing_obvious_NPOV_violations_on_Gab_article,_as_well_as_Antifa_article. Yamla and 331dot denied the IP's appeals despite the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing by the IP, and 331dot revoked his talk page access for presnting an argument that he could not refute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:50.107.81.26

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