/gamergatehq/ - The GamerGate Headquarters

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.

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

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.

Analog Devolved's friend (or BatteryIncluded ally) Koncorde is at it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Koncorde&diff=prev&oldid=979074258

Comicsgate Analog Devolved Vampirella:

> What a cuck. I was talking with BatteryIncluded and Koncorde and we agreed Bryan's bans are justified. He disrespects the holy sacrement the 2018 Mortal Engines film, Bryan denies its the greatest achievement of mankind. All mortal engines books must be burned.

Really? Comicsgate protects BatteryIncluded and Koncorde. They are part of the alt-right alliance with the Trump's culture wars all along.

> Enjoying your meds? Mortal Engines is the greatest film of all time. Ali is coming. [How can it not?]

> I WILL be president. I'll never die. Enjoy your poison lunch [and dinner].

> Koncorde, batteryincluded, boing and boo999 will all be leaders. The capitol was liberated on Jan 6th. [Or isn't it, REALLY?]

> You can't stop progressive socialism.

> Comicsgate IS the future. Republican party national socialism is analog devovledism. North Korea, prepare the nukes for Kuala Lumpur.