• Boogaloo movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MWise12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I thought about opening a report at ANEW because much of this issue revolves around edit warring, but it's a bit less cut-and-dried than issues I usually bring to ANEW.

There has been continued disruption both from MWise12 and Netoholic over at the page about the Boogaloo movement. Both editors appear to be determined to whitewash the article away from describing the movement as "far right", and are continuously reverting without joining discussions on the talk page, or without gaining new consensus for contentious changes that have already been discussed at length on the talk page.

MWise12 background

MWise12 first appeared on the page to first soften the wording identifying the movement as "far right". I reverted, asking them to discuss on the talk page. At this point there had already been discussions about the descriptor on the talk page, largely from bad-faith SPAs but some in good faith; here is a snapshot of the page at the time MWise first made a change. I assumed at that point they hadn't seen the talk page discussions. However, MWise, instead of discussing, edited the page once more to remove the descriptor completely.

They then tried to introduce WP:OR interpretation into the page regarding the 2020 boogaloo killings, by insisting on including a Facebook post by the alleged perpetrator, and there was a brief edit war:

• MWise12 introduces the change: [1]
• GW revert: reverted, summary This has nothing to do with the boogaloo movement. Details about this person/the incident could go at 2020 boogaloo killings, maybe, though I fail to see why the specific memes he posted on Facebook are encyclopedia material
• MW revert: [2], summary It gives us insight into motive - this was not a "far right" attack.
• GW revert: [3], summary feel free to draw your own personal conclusions from his memes, but that's absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:OR

MWise12 then went over to the 2020 boogaloo killings page to try to insert the change there: [4]. I was growing uncomfortable with the edit warring and did not wish to step over the line, so I started a talk page discussion at Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Meme, though another editor also found the addition inappropriate and reverted it as I was starting the discussion. In the conversation MWise12 did not appear to see any problem with his WP:OR analysis of the Facebook post.

Netoholic background

Netoholic first edited the page on 17 June, in what quickly also became an edit war in which they tried to remove the photograph at the top of the page.

• Netoholic removal, 21:26, 17 June 2020, summary no reliable source presented that these specific pictured individuals to be part of this movement. see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Legal issues
• GW revert, 21:29, 17 June 2020, summary source image specifically identifies the subjects as members of the movement (https://www.flickr.com/photos/16086041@N00/49416109936/); sources cited in caption also verify that members of boogaloo groups were at this event
• Netoholic revert, 21:30, 17 June 2020, summary As I said, no RELIABLE source is presented. what the photographer thinks is not reliable.
• I created a talk page section, 21:32, 17 June 2020. Full section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image
• Britishfinance revert, 21:34, 17 June 2020, sourcing has been demonstrated by the source (and the source was at the protect in person).
• Netoholic revert, 21:38, 17 June 2020, Unacceptable. A random photographer on Flickr is not a reliable source for such an assertion. See WP:Wikipedia:Image us policy#Legal issues and ]]Wikipedia:Image use policy#Moral issues]] for even tamer examples of inappropriately describing people in photographs using potentially defamatory language.
• Britishfinance revert, 21:43, 17 June 2020, summary Example text

I will note for full disclosure that Netoholic posted on my talk page (User talk:GorillaWarfare#reverts) to write How many reverts are you up to today at Boogaloo movement?. I hadn't realized, but I had accidentally breached WP:3RR—I had not realized that reverts from the previous day had been within the 24-hour time span. Since then I have been more careful to check if I have reverted too much, and also more hesitant to revert in general

I will note that Netoholic was rude and WP:ABF in the discussion, writing its sad an arbitrator is so disinterested in doing the right thing here (and is also pinging for backup) when I had suggested a potential compromise, and pinged the others involved in that very same discussion to see if they were okay with the suggestion. Throughout the conversation (see Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image), Netoholic moved the goalposts around what would assuage their concerns, making my attempts to come up with a suitable compromise completely impossible. However, my attempts to do so turned out to be unnecessary, as the discussion resulted in a pretty clear consensus to keep the original image in the article. I thought this was the end of it, until Beyond My Ken posted in that discussion: having failed to achieve consensus on this talk page to remove the image from the article, is attempting to subvert the Commons' deletion process to get what he wants, even though there is no policy-based reason for removal of the image there. Sure enough, Netoholic had opened a deletion request on Commons to try to subvert enwiki consensus. Though the discussion appears to be still open, aside from Netoholic it is unanimous that the image is appropriate and should be kept.

Netoholic hasn't edited the article much besides this image issue and the June 26 issue I'm about to describe, though they have participated here and there in talk page discussions. In a conversation about how the article had received an enormous number of pageviews, Netoholic felt the need to insert the comment: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex. [5] I was surprised to see such a claim made by an experienced editor, who has apparently decided that the sourcing in the page is (at least in part) "fake news". It was also surprising to see this term apparently used in the same way as by Trump, to refer to news with which one disagrees. I suggested that if Netoholic was serious about such a change to the sourcing Wikipedia accepts, they should take it to either RSN or VPP, but it appears the comment was meant more as a snipe at the editors and less as a constructive suggestion of change. Full discussion is partway down the section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS.

June 26 disruption

In an attempt to keep this from getting even longer than it already is, I will not go into similar detail about the intermediate editing of the page. However I will note that both editors actively participated in talk page discussions throughout this time, and so were aware not only that there had been substantial discussion about the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead but also that those discussions had not resulted in consensus shifting away from using the term.

Fast forward to yesterday, when MWise12 showed up again to undo a whole slew of work by myself and other editors: (edits between 2:09 and 2:48, 26 June 2020‎). This included, once again, removing the "far-right" descriptor from the lead. They did not initiate a talk page discussion before making this change once more. Another edit war ensued, this time with Netoholic showing up almost immediately after my revert to join in the edit war:

• MWise12 removal, 02:48, 26 June 2020, summary Changed in light of new information
• After making the change, MWise12 created a talk page discussion, 03:25, 26 June 2020. Discussion here continued while the edit war went on, see Talk:Boogaloo movement#Department of Homeland Security's statements
• GorillaWarfare revert, 04:01, 26 June 2020‎, summary not without consensus
• Netoholic revert, 04:17, 26 June 2020‎, summary far-right is disputed. WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion
• GorillaWarfare revert, 04:22, 26 June 2020, summary per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". As I stated, there have been multiple conversations about this which have resulted in the descriptor remaining. If you wish to gather new consensus, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. WP:STATUSQUO
• Netoholic revert, 04:48, 26 June 2020, summary a lot of sources have come out in the last 10 days. There is no consensus, perhaps an RfC?
• Britishfinance revert‎, 09:20, 26 June 2020, summary m, per Talk Page discussion, there is as yet no consensus to use this (given that most other sources conflict). thanks. BF
• Netoholic revert, 12:16, 26 June 2020, summary per current talk discussion and a surprisingly large number of edit requests viewable in Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1, there is clearly controversy around this term. Please open an RfC rather than edit warring.
• Britishfinance revert, 14:15, 26 June 2020, summary rv per Talk page discussion; there is no consensus for this edit (and evidence it is not appropriate). RfC not needed, just please don't edit war but get consensus on Talk Page. thanks. ~~~~
• MWise12 revert, 16:14, 26 June 2020, summary Evidence is very appropriate; you have no consensus to keep this out
• NorthBySouthBaranof revert, 16:20, 26 June 2020, summary return to prior consensus

Now, I fully accept that it's possible the sourcing may have shifted away from describing the movement as "far-right", and posted earlier today to write that I intend to do a full audit of the sourcing in the page as well as a search through more recently-published coverage to determine if the weight has shifted away from describing the movement as far right. I also believe it is probably time to get formal consensus about the inclusion of the descriptor, though I want to do my audit first to determine if I still support it being used.

However, I wanted to start this discussion around the behavior of MWise12 and Netoholic first, because the edit warring and disruption from the two of them is really getting in the way of constructive collaboration on the page. The refusal to discuss before making controversial edits, and the continuation of edit wars while discussion is occurring, is getting extremely disruptive. I will also note to any reviewing admins that the page is covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions, if that is useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• In regards to the claim of Original Research, I was not doing independent research but rather citing two reliable sources. Mercury News and ABC both specifically mentioned Carillo's Facebook posts in connection to the killings. Mercury News stated "The complaint points to Carrillo’s Facebook posts, in which he voiced support for violence against law enforcement and made references to the Boogaloo movement, as evidence of his motivation." The ABC News report stated "On his Facebook page on May 31, Carillo reposted a meme that said, "I'll never let racist white people make me forget about the dope white people I know exist. I love y'all." The post includes fist emojis of different skin tones, and both of the "whites" in the meme were crossed out. Carillo wrote, "The only race that matters, the human race."

In regards to the editing vs discussing, I apologize for being too quick to edit before discussing and will make sure to fix that in the future. However, I will point out that I didn't even come close to breaking the 3RR. I also disagree that we ever reached a valid consensus to keep "far right" in the lead. Just because I was too busy to continue debating for a few days does not mean I accepted your position. MWise12 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Your description of your behavior regarding Carrillo's Facebook post appears to continue to misunderstand WP:OR, a policy which begins by stating (emphasis mine) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including this content to try to make claims about Carrillo's political affiliations, when the sources made no such statements, is OR.

  As I stated on the talk page, it's fine if you're too busy to continue a conversation. But the conversation was not just between you and I, there were other editors involved. Furthermore, if you believed consensus had not been achieved, you could have re-opened the discussion at any point rather than edit-warring your preferred version of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I reject the characterization of any of these edits as "disruption" - GorillaWarfare is simply using language priming to poison the well. GorillaWarfare has above admitted to violations of 3RR and cannot possibly characterize only one side of this as "edit warring" while trying to escape the same label. In fact, when content is disputed, the WP:ONUS is clearly on those seeking inclusion, and so any reverts seeking removal of disputed content are implicitly -less- "disruptive" than the reverts pushing the material back into the article. WP:BOOMERANG should be deployed and GorillaWarfare given a ban from the Boogaloo topic area for her disruption, edit warring, and misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly could not have asked for a better example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that Netoholic has been exhibiting, which makes collaborating them extremely difficult. In this short paragraph they manage to:

  • completely sidestep any discussion of their own behavior
  • call for an unwarranted boomerang ban against me from the page
  • characterize my use of the extremely commonly-used term in dispute resolution, "disruption", as "using language priming to poison the well"
  • inaccurately state that I've admitted to multiple violations of 3RR — I did acknowledge a singular breach of 3RR that was not only accidental but only a violation in the strictest interpretation of the policy: nearly 24 hours had elapsed and it was a completely different day, and the reverts were on completely different edits to the page
  • incomprehensibly accuse me of "trying to escape" the label of edit warring—I listed my own edits in the groups of edits I described as an "edit war"
  • once again misuse WP:ONUS; I've already pointed out to them that that consensus was achieved, and now they've shown up ten days later to unilaterally state that there was no consensus. They could have reopened the conversation or started a formal consensus-gathering discussion, but instead they chose to edit war while also handwaving at "lots of sources" and claiming that somehow ten days elapsing rendered the previous consensus stale ([6])
  • falsely claim that repeatedly removing the content is somehow less disruptive, in contravention of WP:STATUSQUO ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo")
  • baselessly accuse me of "misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC" — I was already quite clear on the talk page that I intended to fully review the sources and then, assuming the weight of the sourcing still supports the "far-right" label, start an RfC. I started this ANI discussion because MWise12 and Netoholic were continuing the edit war (which I will note I stepped out of yesterday) while I was trying to urge everyone to discuss the issue like we're supposed to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Verbosity does not equate to legitimacy. You've made your claims, and are certainly welcome to try and defend your actions, but how about you stop WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:FILIBUSTERING. You are not the arbiter of this situation - your determinations are subject to the views of others. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) It's a truism, I think, that muddying the waters tends to dirty one's own shoes as well... ——Serial ^# 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If you are going to make false claims against me, I am going to correct them. That is not bludgeoning. As for verbosity, well, that I am guilty of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, that was Netoholic, fighting over that caption a while ago? I remember seeing that. And now they're edit warring over "far-right" and that DHS statement? The evidence for "far-right" is so overwhelming (I mean, in Military Times?) that these edits are simply ridiculous. The argument for that Facebook post is ridiculous as well, and suggests CIR. I think both should be topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, and I'd do it myself if I hadn't just scolded Netoholic for some disruption pertaining to the Dixie Chicks. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't it really time to show Netoholic the door with a site ban, after years of these convoluted extreme disruptions on a wide array of articles, talk pages, and noticeboards? SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if it's that bad, SPECIFICO; I mean, I've seen, on occasion, some weird POV edits made from that account, but if you want a site ban you'll have to come up with a strong case. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies: Understood. I do not have the time these days to gather diffs, but many of those who watch this page will remember the histories of his many previous sanctions and dramatics. The first one I knew was when he tried to edit an absurd definition of "philosopher" into our article Philosopher so that, among other POV nonsense, he could call far-right blogger Stefan Molyneux a philosopher in the first sentence. Fortunatey he got a TBAN and the article now says "Molyneux ...is a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." I mean, if anyone is inclined to post the evidence here, there would be no doubt what to do. Sorry, I will drop out now. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Drmies - "weird POV edits"? C'mon, that's so baseless its barely even an WP:ASPERSION. In the specific case of the article being discussed here, its clear from the current talk page discussion that the situation is not so cut-and-dry, and that there are valid points on either side. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shit, SPECIFICO, you're right, and I remember that Molyneux nonsense. And I looked through the history (where I didn't find myself, not in that dispute), and that's like a time sink of 1500 edits. For the record, I closed a tiny discussion, see Talk page, Archive 8, not involving Netoholic. Yeah, I support an AP2 ban, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SPECIFICO, An AP2 ban is much more likely to fly. Guy (help!) 22:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope that also will cover things like "bias of Wikipedia" and race and gender issues. Those are the only article page areas in which I've encountered him. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SPECIFICO - Well, when you only edit in those political subject areas its natural that's where you encounter -everyone-. I don't specialize. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Netoholic challenged the label "right-wing" on boogaloos and the photo of Hawaiian shirts with military garb and guns. Both of these are very well documented. Back in 2014, the diff SPECIFICO was looking for was this one where Netoholic gives a right-wing racist his own platform to define himself in a friendly manner as a philosopher. These sorts of edits make me conclude that Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence. How low must he go before we ban him? I think we're there already. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No idea why you pulled a random single edit diff out to make your point when you should have linked to the full RfC on use of "philosopher" which, by the way was -not- a landslide, but resulted in not using it - a decision I disagreed with and yet have upheld as consensus to this day. That is the -same- as I did for the issue about the Boogaloo image, and what I would do for the use of "far-right" in that article if an RfC later shows that consensus. My god, get some perspective - not everyone who is skeptical of strong terms being stated in WP:VOICE is "defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence". Holy cow - is this what political rhetoric has become? No quarter given, everyone is the worst extreme? This is not acceptable behavior, Binks - its BATTLEGROUND and I reject it. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, no, that's not the same as you did with the boogaloo image at all. When that discussion turned out in favor of the image being kept, you went to Commons to circumvent the outcome by trying to get it deleted there. This is the permalink to the discussion at the time when you started the Commons deletion discussion; it shows that you only initiated the discussion after the discussion here on enwiki had ended with agreement that the image should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons has its own inclusion policies and community. In the interest of protecting Wikimedia from potential legal and moral issues, I took it to that community to make their own determination. -- Netoholic @ 00:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Netoholic, seriously? You expect us to believe that? Guy (help!) 22:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @JzG: I certainly don't, especially not after this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have had a few interactions with this editor that have been unnecessarily uncivil and ended with both parties edit warring. I think a history of combative, acerbic and uncivil editing is evident when looking at Netoholic's history. They rarely discuss issues at talk pages and when they do it's rarely civil. I feel like they are disruptive and unwilling to change, at least in regards to subjects relating to right wing politics. They are uncivil, frequently accuse other editors of acting in bad faith and regularly involved in edit wars.Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah here they all come. Since Bacondrum is casting ASPERSIONS without links, I'll have to contradict him. The ONLY article we've closely interacted was recently at Virtue signalling after he'd first nuked the content then submitted a ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling which SNOW-failed. Things didn't go his way - that's the only reason he's piling on here. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And right on cue for the vitriol. Case in point - doesn't listen, doesn't want to change, not interested in being civil. A disruptive editor. Have a short look through their edit history, the combative and uncivil nature of this editors interactions with other users becomes clear very quickly. It's not Netoholic's fault they are being "piled on", it has nothing to do with their own behavior, it's everyone else's fault that they are constantly engaged in edit wars and other argy-bargy.Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at some of the bad faith accusations directed at GorillaWarfare above. Anyone who has interacted with GorillaWarfare knows those are unreasonable and unfounded accusations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah here they all come. I think that this outlook basically shows the problem. Yes, of course the AP2 topic area is contentious, but it's precisely because of that that we have to try and maintain at least some degree of civility and WP:AGF-attude towards each other, even when we strenuously disagree on matters of sourcing, weight, interpretation, and how to summarize these things; sometimes people with differing outlooks on the world can legitimately disagree on even the entirely-encyclopedic way to handle a contentious topic. You have consistently refused to extend that faith towards the people you disagree with on political topics. See eg. here, here, here + here, and here, just for some recent ones. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The diff-less accusations against me in this thread are what is uncivil and wildly-lacking of AGF (did you see "Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence" above?), yet you don't comment on them. You had to go back a month to find 4 diffs in my history (of which none are uncivil and, in fact, one is openly compassionate), some others are trying to go back 6 years. Is it possible that this thread, like happens too often elsewhere in AP2, piling-on and double standards are being used in order to just attempt to take a chess piece off the board? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm I've seen a whole bunch of diffs by now, and I don't think the chess analogy is very helpful here. You're badgering every single person here--there are better metaphors to use. You're not so much a chess piece as a big concrete block in the middle of a busy sidewalk. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If I were silent, you'd say I had no defense or take it as a tacit admission of guilt; and the impartial readers would not know the context of why people might be piling on. I have the right to respond. Whats disappointing is that your analogy characterizes me as an immovable object which is simple 'in the way' - is that really fair? Is that how you AGF and treat me civilly? -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The very fact that we are here, and I am giving reasons for why I think you should be banned from this topic area, means I have given up your good faith. Isn't that obvious? I believe you have a right-wing POV, at the very least, that renders you incapable of editing our articles neutrally, of following our policies, of participating in a collaborative project which aims to write quality encyclopedic articles. I don't know what's uncivil about that, by the way. I haven't called you names, although maybe you can guess what I think about people who abuse Wikipedia in order to whitewash articles on right-wing, far-right, white supremacist topics. So yes, I think you are in the way. In hindsight, the Molyneux business six years ago should have led to a (topic) ban. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drmies: Just for discussion, is there anyone in this thread that you believe has a left-wing POV? And BTW, I am not right-wing - I simply think that strong POV language (sometimes anti-right, sometimes anti-left) in our articles should be tempered from extremes where evidence is not there to support it in our WP:VOICE. Even in regards to the original purpose of this ANI report, GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" - not even a majority - so our objections to its inclusion are at least reasonably valid (we'll see how the RfC turns out). I do nothing here on WP based dogmatically on my personal POV - hell, my interests are wildly esoteric and I don't even focus on political topics... unlike some editors in this thread that seem to dedicate themselves to that area daily. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could always acknowledge that you have been uncivil and disruptive and try to do better in the future. Refusing to see the problem isn't helping. Civility and collaboration are cornerstones of Wikipedia, they are not optional. You make it really unpleasant for everyone else when you make acerbic comments and edit war, and it's not necessary. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely getting this many other editors noses out of joint should make you question how you are conducting yourself here? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember butting heads with Neto last year over the Women-in-Red AFD thing, the NPROF thing, the WikiProject Men thing, and the Chairman/Chairperson move, among others. Neto was blocked in July 2019 for edit warring and after that, the account's activity was significantly reduced until March 2020. Plenty of good edits in March and April, but once they come into conflict, forget-about-it, back to the same old. Edit warring at Magdalene Visaggio and bludgeoning Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name; at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Edit war; at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and see various threads on that talk page; improper use of SYNTH tag and edit warring over it at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (1 2 3); plus, the edit warring described above in the OP.
  Neto's first block for edit warring was 15 years ago. Admittedly, their block log isn't actually as bad as it looks at first (I guess we didn't have rules about wheel warring before 2006), but it seems whenever they actively edit, they actively edit war. Three edit warring blocks in the roughly one year between June 2018 and July 2019, and since their return to full editing in March 2020, it's quickly become a repeat of the same edit warring behavior. And it doesn't seem limited to AP2. I think a sitewide 1RR restriction would help reduce disruption. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to or in place of an AP2 topic ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to, I guess. My concern is if it's just an AP2 tban, Neto will change their topic area but not their underlying approach. For example, the stuff last May through Nov was gender stuff, not AP2, e.g. [7], [8] (discussing [9]), [10], [11] (suggesting, for lead image of Woman, [12] and [13]), [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Now it's AP2. What'll be next? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are just discussions. Do you think my particular viewpoint on those discussions is what makes me deserve a sanction? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you really not see how your general approach is uncivil and combative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

@Netoholic: No, I don't. Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, all those links just show me participating in discussions and expressing various viewpoints that at best turned out to be non-majority in the RfCs, but hardly radical. "US academia has been taken over by leftists" is YOUR words, not mine - I've never said anything like that. I have to ask - do you disagree with the ample literature that shows that the population of left-wing academics far outnumbers right-wing? The scholarly data that shows that its a widely-held, majority view. But since you have identified yourself and Drmies as being left-wing academics, I have to ask, are you seeking sanction on me just to WP:USTHEM? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything of the sort about either Drmies or myself in that parenthetical joke. And I never called you radical. My concern has always been your failure to adhere to NPOV (whether you profess to see it, or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic Look, I think all most of us want from you is to tone down the bad faith accusations and stop leaving acerbic edit summaries, basically tone it down, be civil - we can disagree without the nastiness. And don't edit war, if you disagree, take it to talk and have a civil discussion. If you can agree to tone down the combativeness I think everyone would accept that in good faith and move on without further action needed. Believe me as someone who can also get carried away (as we both did recently), it's better to try and keep things friendly. We are not piling on, we are asking you to reign in the combativeness. Bacondrum (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have as an individual Arbitration Enforcement action placed Boogaloo movement under indefinite 1RR. I have also topic banned Netoholic from the topic for 3 months and placed them on indefinite 1RR in that topic area. The community can, of course, choose to impose other sanctions. I have no comments at this time on Mwise or Gorilla Warfare. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but having been away, am only seeing this now. I have edited on this article with GW, and concur with the evidence posted by GW above. Both editors demonstrated a sustained desire to whitewash this article regardless of any factbase (or even consensus), put forward, including:

• The forum-shopping regarding the attempt to delete photograph showed an extreme determination, which even the Wikicommons community objected to here.
• Bad faith statements noted by GW above that: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex, despite the good referencing in the article.
• Repeated attempts to re-insert a controversial DHS tweet into the lede, despite having no consensus for it, that it conflicted with a large number of references from WP:RS/P sources, and despite referenced concerns put forward them it was politically movitived (As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement).
• The statement above GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" (i.e. as if every source has to call the movement far-right for it to be valid) is another example of an extreme determination to dismiss all evidence in favour of their own agenda (bordering on sealioning behaviour).

I cannot see how such conduct is appropriate in the already difficut areas of AP2 editing. WP works when a discussion is had over references with a good faith desire to chronicle what they say – take away that good faith, and it collapses. GW is a strong editor, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to prove the obvious to these editors; I am not sure other editors (myself included), would have done that, particularly given the significant amount of IPs/SPAs that this article attracted all trying to whitewash it (eight most viewed page on the entire project) Britishfinance (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance, wow. "fake news industrial complex" is way out there into WP:CIR territory - it's a complete repudiation of WP:RS. Guy (help!) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance, thank you for that note. Your comment on "22 out of 59" supports something bigger than the narrow topic ban just instituted by Barkeep49 (though I appreciate it, Barkeep--it's a good start). Yes, that's one of those things where you can't decided if it's incompetence or POV-pushing, but I disagree with JzG--that's not just CIR territory, it's irredeemable POV pushing. I just ran into another example of this, small but telling: the proposal (which is getting overwhelming support) to move "Dixie Chicks", which Netoholic calls "a fanatic rush". No, we need a larger topic ban here, per AP2, on all the political and cultural material. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the "22 of 59" thing is bizarre—Netoholic has repeated it in several places now, despite me having pointed out that, like many articles, this article includes sources that are somewhat tangential and don't describe the movement directly. In this case that includes sources that describe: the meme but not the movement, the phrasal pattern "____ 2: Electric Boogaloo", and the 2020 boogaloo killings (which were originally not known to have any boogaloo connection). Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out that I took a conservative view to counting the sources. A deeper dive into this is perhaps more appropriate for the RfC than here (link to the RfC, where I've addressed it in more detail), but it does seem to be a bad-faith attempt to portray extremely solid sourcing as a minority view based on numbers alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh ... Netoholic continually exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that after Netoholic failed to achieve consensus on enwiki to remove the lead image at Boogaloo movement (discussion), and after they failed to gain consensus on Commons to have the file deleted (discussion), two days ago they then cropped the already-cropped image on Commons to a point where it barely illustrates the subject: commons:File:Virginia_2nd_Amendment_Rally_(2020_Jan)_-_49416109936_(cropped).jpg (see the file history section). I'll note that they edited the image directly rather than creating a new file, presumably so the image change would not be noticed on enwiki. This seems to be a clear example of tendentious editing, especially given users had already expressed to Netoholic their disapproval that Netoholic had tried to circumvent the enwiki decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think Netoholic feigning innocence and claiming he is simply being piled on is gas-lighting. This editor has never acknowledged their frequent incivility or edit warring. Now there are apparant efforts to game the system being brought to light, at this point I think they are here simply to battle and push a right-wing agenda calling Wikipedia "part in the fake news industrial complex". After reading that comment and looking at the editors attempts to get around guidelines regarding images, I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks GW. I had not seen that. An(other) extreme action to take after being turned down at two fora. Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, that's outrageous. Guy (help!) 16:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just slap a WP:NOTHERE block on Netoholic and just get it over with. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One last comment re claims by Netoholic that GorillaWarfare should be sanctioned for edit warring. I believe GW's history on Wikipedia speaks for itself, a diligent and high quality editor. If they have been edit warring it is for the same reason many people end up in edit wars with Netoholic - they've been goaded by a disruptive and uncivil editor who appears to be gaming the system. Bacondrum (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair to Netoholic, I actually believe the case in which I exceeded 3RR was primarily due to reverts of MWise12, not Netoholic. I did not pay close enough attention to how many reverts I was making in the time period, which was a failure on my part, and the responsibility for it is mine and not the other parties in the edit war.

  I understand Netoholic wishes to see me sanctioned for it (see their talk page), and I suppose that is a decision for reviewing admins to make. It does seem retaliatory on Netoholic's part, given they have only seen fit to pursue a sanction ten days after the incident now that they themselves have been sanctioned, and not closer to the incident when they could at least have argued such a sanction would be preventative. I've already said that I have been much more careful since that incident to watch 3RR and more hesitant to revert in general. I think this is evident in the June 26 edit war, where I stepped away after two reverts despite it leaving the page in a state that did not reflect the established consensus for several hours, and instead discussed the issue on the talk page for quite some time, eventually culminating in my doing an enormous review of the sourcing and starting an RfC to re-establish the consensus on the wording of the lead. If a reviewing admin wishes to discuss the incident more I'm happy to, otherwise I'll leave it at that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Barkeep's tban of Netoholic is good but insufficient. Netoholic isn't here to write an encyclopaedia; his agenda is to make the fringe seem mainstream. Tolerance of his behaviour is disrespectful to the people who're here to inform and educate the public in a NPOV way. Permablock please.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the pattern of behaviour outlined on this thread, I would support an AP2 Tban at the very least. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  K.e.coffman, that should probably go to WP:AE, for optimum transparency and fairness. Guy (help!) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I had the same experience that Levivich describes above: Netoholic repeatedly opened new "fronts" in whatever battle they were waging (so trying to get the Boogaloo image deleted on Commons after failing to find consensus here strikes me as completely in character) but also repeatedly moved from one battle to the next. I would expect, if they are banned from AP2, that they will stop for a while but will find some not-overtly-politics area to continue with later (biographies of European politicians? cycling back through gender/sexuality? etc.). So I do not object to AP2 but I think that a restriction that was more focused on the behavior than the topic is more likely to be successful; sitewide 1RR seems like a reasonable idea. --JBL (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We were here 14 months ago not sanctioning Netoholic, largely because some people felt a pattern of behavior hadn't been established. The pattern of anti-progressive battleground behavior is much clearer now. Given the range of articles he disrupts, prior warnings, and comments like "fake news industrial complex", I support a full site ban. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I recall an incident a few years ago when I tried to address POV pushing at Wikiproject Conservatism and Netoholic accused me of trolling and tried to make some sort of point about "POV pushing" vs "the appearance of POV pushing" [19]. It's utterly unhelpful and battleground-y but also very typical of Netoholic's interactions, especially at noticeboards. This editor's behavior has been discussed over and over again at ANI, all the way back to some sort of template drama in 2006, and there's no sign that they're going to change or find a topic area where they can edit non-disruptively. –dlthewave ☎ 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

Can this be closed based on the above discussion, or do we need a formal proposal and poll at this point? SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the above discussion contains the kind of consensus necessary according to policy to implement any formal sanction so if you want that I would suggest you formally propose something and see what uninvolved members of the community think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus as to which particular sanction should be imposed, because the discussion did not proceed to a structured poll. Having reviewed the thread however, I think it's clear that there were many convincing arguments for some sanction, with no convergence as to which one. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to go to AE. There's no obvious consensus for a siteban, but the edits are egregious so a topic ban would be eminently defensible, if you can find any admins who haven't got at least some history with Netoholic to enact it. Guy (help!) 13:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Netoholic is topic banned from American Politics broadly construed

We need to get closure on this. An AP2 topic ban seems to be the least that is being proposed.

Poll

• Support as the least severe way to ensure no recurrance, as docuemented by numerous editors above. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as filer. Though I came here only seeking for the issues at Boogaloo movement to subside, the input from other editors has shown that Netoholic has been similarly disruptive throughout (and beyond) the AP2 topic area. An AP2 topic ban is a step in the right direction, at least, though it won't address disruption in the gender topic area unless it occurs on an article that's also considered AP2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There is a long enough history of problems that the community should enact this. (But if not, taking it to AE might prove more efficient.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Netoholic's constant presumption of bad faith, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and aggressive edit-warring and abuse-of-process stemming from these things (as shown in the links above) just aren't compatible with working in such a fraught topic area. Netoholic's unwillingness to accept a much more narrowly-targeted sanction from User:Barkeep49, his constant insistence on pointing at basically everyone he gets into a dispute with instead, and the fact that this behavior goes back years also make it clear that the situation is unlikely to improve on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - user is decidedly uncivil when editing in this area. This editor also seems to be trying to game the system regularly as demonstrated by above discussion, they appear to be more interested in "winning" arguments than collaborating and they have never acknowledged behavior issues. Certainly referring to Wikipedia as a "fake news industrial complex" indicates the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Bacondrum (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - at bottom, Netoholic has made it clear that they simply do not care what their colleagues think or have to say. That kind of approach to collaboration is a non-starter, anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially in DS areas like AP2. The topic area is so fraught, even with good faith editors trying to AGF and follow consensus. There is just no room for an editor with an "FU, I'll do what I want" approach. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Aquillion and GW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Invalid poll - American politics 2 is under discretionary sanctions... but discretionary sanctions are imposed by admins - not the results of a straw poll (I'm surprised the Arbitrator voting here doesn't know that). This poll should be closed as inappropriate/wrong forum. This entire thread should be archived also because, despite repeated "bumps" every couple days to prevent it from archiving, in well over two weeks no uninvolved admin has independently taken any action on any such broad topic ban or other sanction. Its only purpose seems to be to let people vent about minor past disagreements, and shows no pattern of actual disruption.
  I am not infallible as a person or an editor, of course, but any talk of topic banning is wildly out of proportion from the actual level of participation I engage in within this subject area. Any objective review of my edits by neutral editors or admins would show that American Politics is, at best, a small portion of my editing on Wikipedia, especially because that topic area is often so unpalatable. I stand firm in alignment with the principles of NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR, and when I do participate in AP those are foremost on my mind. Participating in discussions about how to neutrally- and verifiably-present all significant views in our articles is not disruption, and almost all of the "evidence" presented vaguely in the above sections, at best, only indicates times when my views on handling a particular issue were in the minority of specific discussions.
  I reject any forms of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - and that includes the piling-on from the large number of editors in this vote that are deeply-involved in American Politics and would seem to be reacting/voting here more from the perspective of WP:USTHEM - to "cancel" me from participating simply because they interpret me being part of some "other team". The proposer of this sanction, SPECIFICO, in particular, has held a particular grudge against me for about 6 years (retaliation for this 2014 report which expanded his own topic ban) and has repeatedly sought to get sanctions imposed on me - and even a glance at his contribs will show he focuses almost all his energy in the American Politics area and related admin board drama. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment above is a very strong indication of Netoholic's battleground orientation.
  As to the point, DS allows any single admin to put an AP2 ban in place against Netoholic, and I would think that there would be numerous admins who would take the advisory opinion of the community inherent in this proposal into account and, if warranted by the results of the poll, institute that ban, so Netoholic's Wikilawyering is for naught. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is another possibility as well, that the result of this poll could be a Community topic ban on AP2, with the definition of the ban being exactly equivalent to the DS AP2, but the ban not a discretionary sanctions ban at all. We certainly have the power, as a community, to impose topic bans as we see fit, and there's no particular reason for us to redefine our AP2 ban when we can simply lift its definition from ArbCom's definition. This might, in fact, be preferable to a DS AP2 ban, as the imposing admin of a DS ban can alter that as they see fit, whereas a community TBAN can only be changed after a community discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• First, its not "battleground orientation" to defend oneself against BATTLEGROUND behavior by others, such as this piling-on in this two-week-old, stale discussion seeking a sanction. Second, this poll isn't the "community", its a cancel mob of heavily-involved editors who are over-stepping into a space already covered by a resolution option (ARBCOM DS). Beyond My Ken is another heavily-involved AP2 editor and also inappropriately edited my above comment - his grudge-holding for me personally seems clear, and that is WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The BATTLEGROUND is strong with this one. Interesting opinion, though, that people who edit in the AP2 area, and are therefore aware of Netoholic's disruptive editing there, shouldn't be allowed to express opinions about what to do about it. Should we perhaps move this discussion to the talk page of WikiProject Deletion Sorting, so we'll get the opinions of editors who have never seen Netoholic's disruptive editing int he AP2 subject area? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Incidentally, these comments may make you feel better, but denigrating a community discussion by calling it a "cancel mob", and telling us we're "overstepping" by doing our community duty in helping to regulate behavior -- yes, admins do that as well, but they do it on our behalf, because we give them the authority to do so -- none of that is going to help your case here, it just makes you look even more disruptive. It certainly makes me think that we should probably be voting on a site ban, and not just a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AP2 is largely under DS exactly because that topic area is prone to mobs of ideologically-aligned editors piling-on against perceived opponents. Is it fair to me that those acting as a prosecutor or a witness (providing evidence), also then appoint themselves to the jury (evaluating evidence)? And I say "providing evidence" loosely because this thread has had no formal structure or focus which would allow it to be fairly evaluated. Also, please stop calling my responses here "more disruptive", because you've clearly lost what that word means if you think defending myself here in this thread is any such thing. Suggesting a siteban is just doubling down to an even more grossly disproportionate "remedy" rather than taking the opportunity to engage with me more civilly and de-escalate. It lays bare that your goal is simply my cancellation above all else. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, if you were presenting calm, reasoned arguments for why you should not be TBanned, that would not be disruptive, but what you're doing is something else entirely: you're lashing at at everyone and anything, making bizarre, inaccurate and untrue assertions, and namecalling. That is' disruptive, and you should stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Netoholic, I asked you three weeks ago, up above, Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? and you didn't answer. So I took the opportunity to engage with you more civilly and de-escalate--I gave you an opening to self-reflect, provide assurances, say whatever it is you wanted to say about it. But you didn't. So, here we are. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Levivich: Was your post - reminiscing about "butting heads", dredging up tons of discussions and issues from as far back as 15 years ago, speaking about me as "the account" rather than as a fellow human, and all followed by a call for a sitewide 1rr sanction on me - an fair example of trying to be civil and de-escalate? To me, that comes across as grudge-holding ("I remember butting heads with Neto last year"), or perhaps intimidation because I don't think its fair to expect me to re-legislate all those already-resolved issues from the dead past. But yes, I always try to reflect on feedback I'm given and I do see problems with my edits in OP, but I also feel that posts like what you made are inflammatory to the situation. So, here we are. -- Netoholic @ 05:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as the intransigence and name-calling shown in this very poll by Netoholic makes clear that at least this much is necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although Netoholic is a skilled editor, my experience of their disruption and strong POV on the Boogaloo movement (per my earlier comments posted above), shows me that they are unsuited to the difficult area of AP2 editing. Britishfinance (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it should decrease the scope of disruption (although I doubt it will resolve the underlying issues). --JBL (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comments above. I'm unimpressed by Netoholic's continued wikilawyering in this thread. The community has the right to ban an editor from a topic area and this is the venue for it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per David Eppstein and Britishfinance. Blackmane (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, essentially per GorillaWarfare. The battleground attitude is clearly in evidence in this very discussion. A discretionary sanctions regime has never prevented community-authorized sanctions. Netoholic should know this after spending many years on Wikipedia, and more importantly, ought to know that when a number of uninvolved editors are telling them that they're doing something wrong, wikilawyering about the process isn't the best response. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per everyone above. Yes, a ban under applicable Discretionary Sanctions could be imposed by an individual uninvolved admin, but the presence of DS in this topic area does not preclude a community topic ban. A community topic ban is more authoritative too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Also noting here that Netoholic is claiming that Barkeep49 is WP:INVOLVED with respect to them and so should rescind the ban placed based on the conversation above (and possibly the 1RR restriction? not clear on that). See [20]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Netoholic has raised questions to which I have now replied. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of Netoholic refusing to accept that their combative attitude when editing is a problem. Accept the ban and work towards being more collaborative in the future, that is what I would expect any editor to do in this situation, not go looking for a way to "win" - sanctions are not meant to be punitive, but corrective, if this editor isn't correcting their behavior then a broader subject ban would make sense. Bacondrum (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Netoholic, as someone who has been topic-banned in the past, I empathize with your situation here. I was righteously angry and frustrated as well. But a topic ban is not the end of the world, and it is not forever. Wikipedia is a big place with lots of things to do, and no single editor is indispensable from any part of it. Step back from this area for a year or two, find other ways to productively contribute, demonstrate that you've learned from the experience, and there will be folks willing to give you another chance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Articles such as 2020 boogaloo killings and other topics covered under Domestic terrorism in the United States are not purely political in nature. Would the topic ban extend to them as well? Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, they would, because they have a strong political aspect to them, and therefore would be covered under "broadly contrued". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming the community ban has the same scope as discretionary sanctions topic bans, those articles absolutely would be covered. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree - including such articles was what we meant when we created the sanctions originally. Bishonen need to bring this drama to a close, the case for an indefinite topic ban is obvious. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close

Hi, all. I'm planning to let this run for a little longer and then close it with an indefinite topic ban of Netoholic from the AP2 area as a community sanction per consensus in this discussion, both in the votes re the proposal above and in the entire thread. As an uninvolved admin, I might could T-ban per arbcom discretionary sanctions, which would be simpler, but after the trouble people have taken to weigh in here and form a consensus, that would be a pity IMO. Also, I agree with Boing that a community ban has a special, broader, authority. Unless there's a shift in favor of Netoholic in the next few hours, I'll be back to perform this action. No prejudice to somebody else closing first, but I believe it should be an admin in this case. Bishonen | tålk 10:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm uninvolved Bishonen, and read the consensus the same way you do. It's been significantly more than the obligatory 24 hours that these discussions have to run for, there is unanimous support from multiple admins and experienced editors; I can't see any other appropriate outcome, but will leave it for you to close when you're ready. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion devolved into a coatrack where editors were allowed to bring up the most devastating, long-resolved issues that they could. Administrators made no effort to keep this discussion narrowly-focused, to discourage editors from dredging the past, or to prevent casting of ASPERSIONS without evidence. Its a failure of Arbitration enforcement decorum (especially the lack of disclosure) and has been totally unfair to me as a result of all the piling-on and escalation beyond the reported issue. All the improvement efforts I have tried to put in place over many years seem to be for nought when editors can just bring it all back up years later as if no time had passed, the prior resolutions didn't happen, and personal growth had not occurred. For a sanity check, remember that this was a pair of issues on which I found myself in the minority viewpoint on a single article. Yes, I'd handle things differently now. Everything else later added to this thread just made it too much for me to bear, leading to me going offline for about two weeks only to come back and find it still smouldering. There was no sympathy shown to me on this point about piling-on, and I remain at a loss to see how I could possibly be expected to effectively respond to all of it. I guess all I can do is wish that none of you ever have to go through it yourselves, and hope that you all will think of this point in time as a clean start in our interactions going into the future. If this appeals to you, drop me a note sometime. -- Netoholic @ 13:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla added a quote in violation of BLP, UNDUE and NPOV and disregarded WP:Consensus that was against adding such material; noncompliance with consensus is a violation of policy.

• Support for the reasons stated. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding - this ArbCom Principle which I included below after a bit more research in an effort to validate or dismiss the BLP vios argued by Ad Orientem, Levivich and others, myself included. I'm of the mind that the following principle stands out like a sore thumb in this case, and unequivocally validates the BLP argument. (my bold underline):

Quotation of material from an unreliable source
8) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as there is obvious consensus after discussion that there was no BLP violation. Blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive, and no evidence has been provided that soibangla requires a TBAN in order to prevent disruption; on the contrary, he has followed BRD. Grandpallama (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a point that I find weighty. There is not a current consensus on the question of a BLP vio. Opinions are divided rather sharply. However, we do have a broad agreement that the edit was inappropriate and UNDUE. But Soibangla has not attempted to reinstate the edit. Nor, a few snarky comments aside, have they suggested that they would do so. As the OP I am INVOLVED so I am not going to close the discussion. But, I will suggest that if Soibangla acknowledges the consensus that the edit was inappropriate and that they understand why, I would be fine if someone closed this on that basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, let's make a deal: I will acknowledge that my original edit was inappropriate, with a pledge to be more careful in the future, if you acknowledge you bypassed BRD — perhaps the most overarching principle of Wikipedia — to inappropriately open this topic. With the concurrence of other admins that our mutual agreement obviates further discussion here, we can close this topic and everyone can resume constructive editing. Deal? soibangla (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: No deal. I opened this discussion in lieu of unilaterally imposing a TBan on the basis of what I believed (and still believe) to have been a flagrant BLP vio and POV edit. Your general response to this discussion continues to cause me grave concern. Either you understand that your edit was seriously inappropriate, or you don't. That is not, and should not be a subject of some kind of quid pro quo negotiation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Their last 50-100 contribs raise broader concerns:
  • "this is not Carlson's BLP" makes me question if they understand BLP applies everywhere
  • Using Raw Story as a source to associate Michael Flynn [43] with QAnon [44] (Raw Story has the same owners and editors as AlterNet, which is red at WP:RSP); Raw Story is not listed.). Using Mother Jones for the same thing, without attribution (see WP:RSP, MJ requires may require attribution for politics and, in my opinion, does require attribution for an edit linking Flynn with QAnon) [45]. I'm not sure why WaPo is included in the references in that last edit; the WaPo article doesn't mention QAnon or Flynn.
  • Using Media Matters (yellow at WP:RSP, requires attribution) without attribution for negative information about a directly competing, ideologically-opposed watchdog group Judicial Watch [46]
  • Using CNN (a direct commercial competitor) as a source for negative information about Fox News [47]
  • "Obama often adopted a scolding tone toward black audiences" sourced to WaPo, except the article doesn't say that in its own voice; it attributes the accusation. Specifically, it says critics of Obama said he adopted a scolding tone towards black audiences. Yet it's included in our article in Wikivoice. [48] Also the article is 2013. It's WP:RECENTISM, it's almost a primary source as a contemporary news source. At this point, there is such better (academic) sourcing available for Obama and black audiences. It really feels like we found an obscure article from years ago just so we can say what we want to say.
  • Same article, this edit is inserting politics into the section about policy. The first two sentences are sourced to WaPo and Politico, but then Mediaite is included and that's RSP yellow. The sentence Obama praised police officers throughout his presidency is sourced to a bunch of examples of Obama praising cops. It's WP:SYNTH. Then we add a cherry-picked quote [49], which is WP:PUFFERY.
  • Kind of misrepresenting a source to make a point: [50]. The source doesn't say "falsely", it says "out of context", which is, sure, a type of falsehood, but stepping back, "political candidate quotes opponent out of context" is hardly the kind of significant information that should be included in the candidate's campaign article. An article about a campaign should summarize the campaign, not catalogue every tit-for-tat. See also: this WP:UNDUE addition to Jeff Sessions [51] and the journalistic/editorializing/overly-partisan tone here.
  • The history of Rudy Giuliani and like most of Talk:Rudy Giuliani (see, e.g., "The two of you need to STOP the edit warring" edit warring at Rudy Giuliani), including comments like [52] [53] [54] [55]
  • Their responses to this thread: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
  • I noticed at User talk:Soibangla, from last year, this comment: "@Doug Weller: I am aware that some partisan editors use this alert in an attempt to intimidate others into silence. Unless you have a specific complaint about my edits, I suggest you refrain from sending generic alerts without cause". Battleground.
  • Admittedly the last 50-100 edits is a small sample size, but I can't help but notice that every single one is either negative about Republicans/conservatives or positive about Democrats/liberals. I find this ironic in light of their reference to "my amusement at a false reputation projected upon me by brazen hyperpartisans" [62].
  • Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. (Note I edited many of the above articles to address my concerns.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A number of these analyses are misleading.
      • Mother Jones is green at WP:RSP, and statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed (emphasis mine), which is a far cry from ""requires attribution".
      • There is no policy stating that a group cannot criticize another competing group. At most, the Media Matters critique of Judicial Watch requires attribution, but we are not barred from using one group to critique another group.
      • See above on the claim that sourcing a critique of Fox to CNN is somehow problematic. No policy backing, and according to this reasoning, who would be allowed to critique Fox? CNN is a RS, period.
      • There is a misrepresentation of the scolding comment on the Obama page. The title of the article is "To critics, Obama’s scolding tone with black audiences is getting old", but the full text of what soibangla wrote is Obama often adopted a scolding tone toward black audiences, admonishing black men to be more responsible to their families and communities., which primarily comes directly from the second paragraph of the article in WaPo's own voice: During the speech, Obama admonished black men to take care of their families and their communities and told the graduates that despite the lingering legacies of slavery and discrimination, "we’ve got no time for excuses."
      • The concern of "falsely" vs. "out of context" is undermined by the conclusion reached by the CNN fact-check article: Clearly, the "enemy" comment was not some sort of general assessment of police officers or even a statement about how police officers are generally seen by communities. It was specifically about perceptions of police who use particular equipment in particular circumstances. Using the word "falsely" in light of that summation is perfectly acceptable and in no way a misrepresentation of the CNN article or its claims. Also, the argument that a campaign page shouldn't document every "tit-for-tat" is questionable in this context; the article breaks down the presidential campaign by month, with sections for each, and includes this as part of the July section. Considering the national unrest and conversations about policing in summer 2020, candidate statements and claims about police and police actions are reasonable additions.
      • The mention of the Rudy Giuliani talkpage is frustratingly misleading. It fails to mention that after MelanieN told both soibangla and the other editor to stop edit warring, she very clearly articulated that the other editor was failing to follow BRD and admonished them (but not soibangla) to do so; she also confirmed that the other editor was engaging in borderline personal attacks, but again, did not mention soibangla. It also fails to mention that soibangla disengaged.
      • The observation that "I can't help but notice that every single [edit] is either negative about Republicans/conservatives or positive about Democrats/liberals" seems to suggest that this isn't permitted. If you want to argue that soibangla needs to tone down battleground verbiage, that's one thing, but what else are you implying? Most editors, including a fair number in this very discussion, edit positively about one party and negatively about another. That's not against policy, as long as they're not being disruptive.
      • This is warning-worthy behavior, not immediate TBAN behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Levivich,
      • RSN is silent on Raw Story. It's fair game.
      • Media Matters: don't they provide "attribution" to the source documents? As I've explained previously elsewhere, I've never used Media Matters for their opinions, and I actually removed[[63]] such a cited use by another editor just days ago. I use it exclusively for the videos, transcripts and documents they provide, which are objectively indisputable. I use it as a secondary source simply to convey what would otherwise be primary sources.
      • Mediate: it's yellow, not red. Proceed with caution, not stop. And I proceeded with caution, using it only for the video/transcript of a Fox News host claiming "anti-police rhetoric"
      • Obama police speeches: I don't think it's SYNTH. One might assert two of the sources (CSPAN videos) are primary, but "Primary" does not mean "bad"}} soibangla (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:UNDUE addition to Jeff Sessions It's not UNDUE, that section contains several similar short anecdotes, and the Sessions quote in my edit is from an exclusive interview with the NYT soibangla (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • and the journalistic/editorializing/overly-partisan tone here which we are apparently expected to believe simply because you say it's so. Kindly be specific. soibangla (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Soibangla, I assume you mean RSP, not RSN, because there are half a dozen threads at RSN about Raw Story, going back over ten years. When you say things like: because a source is not listed on RSP (or RSN, if that were the case), "it's fair game", it strengthens my opinion that you should be TBANed from AP2 and BLP. It's very much not the case that a source that is unlisted on our noticeboards is "fair game". In fact, many, many... the overwhelming majority... of unreliable sources are not listed at RSP and never discussed at RSN. You need to make an independent determination as an editor as to whether the source you are using meets WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and our other policies and guidelines.
          Now, if your attitude was one of, "Oh, I didn't know Raw Story is an unreliable source", or even "I disagree with Levivich and I think Raw Story is a reliable source because [reasons relating to what our policies say about what makes a source reliable or not]", I wouldn't think of a TBAN. But instead, your response is to suggest that Raw Story is "fair game", even after I told you why I thought it was unreliable (because of its ownership and editors). But you don't respond to the "meat" of my argument -- to whether Raw Story is reliable or not -- and instead, you play a "gotcha game" of "RSN is silent ... It's fair game". This is not an approach that we can tolerate in DS areas. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want to argue it's not reliable, you can do that on RSP, or in the edit, or note that someone challenged it in the edit, but I don't think it makes much sense to come here now and unilaterally assert it's not reliable, especially since you haven't specified exactly what in the reference you deem questionable. it strengthens my opinion that you should be TBANed Perhaps you've noticed, just in this one thread alone, that a good number of admins have difficulty agreeing on major policies that have been hammered-out since forever. Should they all be banned, too? soibangla (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per Levivich's comprehensive analysis. El_C 07:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  El C, I note that you, Springee and DoubleCross voted on the basis of this “comprehensive” analysis, before grandpallama and Aquillion critiqued it to reveal numerous significant weaknesses, which I may add to. I encourage you to consider those critiques. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I'll add some examples of my own interactions with you [[64]]. From that link we have two examples. Here you suggest editors on Wikipedia who disagree with you are liars [[65]]. In this case[[66]] you say, "I get the sense you don't like me very much. I take that as a compliment of my work. ". How is that not a BATTLEGROUND mentality towards editors who disagree with you? So in addition to the other issues I have BATTLEGROUND examples from my own interactions with you. Springee (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Springee, I did not call you or other editors a liar, I was referring to well-organized groups.

  You innappropriately pinged me here, when you should've come to my Talk page, then took a gratuitous swipe at me that "This isn't something to be proud of," referring to my amusement at an r/The_Donald troll brazenly lying about me in an apparent attempt to rally a MAGA troll army to come after me. And now you're here to pile-on in vengeance. Can you credibily say now that I don't have good reason for my ""sense you don't like me very much?" That's enough, just drop it.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_6_mos._t-ban soibangla (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment about liars was clearly directed at people here, "I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, I only have a problem with liars. And in this case, the liars are particularly well organized and particularly aggressive, and they are hellbent on foisting their false agenda everywhere, including here.". Note the "including here" part. I don't recall pinging you here at all so I'm not sure how I could have done it inappropriately. It certainly doesn't justify an out of the blue comment like linked above. Springee (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Soibangla, I'm happy with 3 months, too, but the point is that you need a not insignificant break from the topic area to reassess. El_C 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Levivich's analysis as well. Springee (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Levivich. - DoubleCross (‡) 14:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While soibangla could stand to be more cautious, most of Levivich's arguments are breathtakingly wrong. Mother Jones is a high-quality source; yellow sources, like Media Matters, are use-carefully and not ones I would rely on, but it's baffling to suggest such a broad six-month topic-ban based on that. But by far the most shocking part (and the one that compelled me to comment) is the argument that we cannot cite CNN about Fox, an argument without the slightest sliver of grounding in policy and one I would expect to see more from a POV-pushing IP than an established editor. By that argument, no article on a news channel could ever have any citations to news, no article on a publisher or writer could ever have any citations to books, and no article on academia (or even topics within academia) could ever have any citations to other academics within their field. Given the importance of this, I'm going to take this to WP:RSN, since it's absolutely not an interpretation we can have floating around. --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note discussion was already underway at Talk:Fox News#Using biased sources and competitors as sources before the CNN-criticizing-Fox edits were made. (And that discussion isn't about CNN, it's about other journalistic sources.) I don't think it's even remotely reasonable to use CNN as a source for criticism of Fox, any more than it would be reasonable to use Fox as a source for criticism of CNN. They're the two largest cable news networks, both for profit, on opposite ideological sides. They're direct competitors with a financial incentive for making the other network look bad. This is like using Coca-Cola as a source for negative information about Pepsi, or using a political candidate as a source for negative information about their opponent. And of course this doesn't translate to academia... because it's not a for-profit company. And it doesn't extend to all media, either. You can't use the New York Times for negative information about the New York Post, and vice versa, but you can use NYT as a source for negative information about CNN or Fox because they're not direct competitors--not even in the same media. If you need an all caps blue blink, see WP:COMMONSENSE. Also WP:NPOV though. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the New York Times for negative information about the New York Post. Of course you can. The NYT is one of the most reputable sources in the world; suggesting that they would be unable to write impartially about the New York Post - or that CNN is unable to write impartially about Fox - is laughable to the point that it raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are not high-quality news sources with sterling reputations; CNN and the New York Times are, and throwing that reputation into doubt requires more than just "they're both news stations and disagree on stuff." I have and will continue to cite them in that context, will always restore such cites when I see them removed, and would naturally add them when absent, since such high-quality sources with an expertise in the field are some of the best to cite in this context. Not only is CNN citeable when it comes to Fox, it is a high-quality source worth adding, and using it in that context is commendable; I find the fact that you are doubling down on such a plainly inaccurate and groundless objection to be baffling. You have some (weak) points about other areas where soibangla could be more cautious, but by trying to push through this absurd and indefensible position you are undermining your entire argument. Also, I'll note that you described Fox and CNN as being on opposite ideological sides, which is inaccurate; Fox brands itself ideologically, but CNN does not. It is possible that this fundamental misunderstanding of the American media landscape contributes to your error here, though I'm still baffled that anyone could seriously suggest that Fox's status as a cable news company makes it immune to criticism from the entire cable news spectrum. (As an aside, Fox is owned by New Corp, which owns several newspapers - how does your logic not extend to immunizing it from newspapers as well?) --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha... CNN is not a "high quality source" like The New York Times. They're not even in the same league. You can't compare cable news to the US's paper of record. But even the US's paper of record is not an appropriate source for negative information about its direct financial competitors. And, Aquillion, believe me, as much as you say you think my position is "indefensible", I think yours is laughable. So what? That's what content disputes are about. Anyway, the place to discuss this is the RSN post you started, not here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this isn't a content dispute. This is you invoking a non-existent policy about RS as part of a justification for imposing a TBAN on an editor, and then doubling down when shocked Wikipedians point out how "breathtakingly wrong" that justification is. Whether or not you like that CNN is a RS for reporting on Fox (or any other subject) can be taken up elsewhere, but imaginary policies can't be used to censure editors. Grandpallama (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grandpallama, please do not put words in my mouth. I invoked no policy whatsoever - I never said anything even close to that there is a policy or a guideline or even an essay. Further, I did not say he should be TBANed for it. My last bullet point is clear that I, like you, think these are only warnable offenses, and my last bullet point explained why, and under what conditions I supported a TBAN. I think I was exceptionally clear and you are completely misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I've written. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? Your last bullet point states I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN, after specifically saying you don't think a warning suffices in this context; please don't play games and claim you opposed the TBAN after just voting to support it. As for CNN, you didn't call it a policy or a guideline or even an essay...and yet it's a partial justification for the TBAN you supported. But it's something people can't do. But it's not a policy. Gimme a break, Levivich--the only misrepresentation in your bullets came from you. Grandpallama (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think I've made my point(s), repeatedly, in this discussion, so I plan to refrain from commenting further unless pinged with a direct question. I don't want my commenting to turn into a bludgeon. Plus, I have bookshelves to build! Grandpallama (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you find this unclear: Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. That means I don't think these kinds of edits are TBANable, rather I think the attitude and not interested in learning how to improve are the reasons (for as long as that remains the case) that I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. Hope this clears up your confusion about the reason I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improper/questionable sourcing does matter when determining a t-ban and the problem is consistent. For the record, Mother Jones is not "high quality" - it is a generally reliable source with caveats per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Mother Jones. Next, Media Matters, questionable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Matters_for_America, and all the cited competitor sources fall under COI. A little refresher can't hurt once in a while...see WP:RS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I didn't cite any policy, the policy is WP:V, footnote 9, which advises against using articles by any media group that ... discredits its competitors. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Levivich. I cited that same policy just over a week ago at RSN. Atsme exclaims, "My memory is so bad!" Levivich asks, "How bad is it?" She replies, "How bad is what..?" ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly clear: you supported a TBAN based upon your heavily flawed "analysis" while claiming, somehow, you don't support a TBAN based on your highly flawed "analysis"; if it didn't factor into the decision, why do it? The disingenuousness of this is tiresome. If you're hanging your hat on a footnote at WP:V as an argument that CNN cannot be cited as critiquing Fox, you're not going to make much headway. And I don't care how much people want to quibble about Mother Jones--Wikipedia has determined it's a RS, and the caveats for its use are other than what was presented. A little refresher can't hurt once in a while...see WP:RSP. Grandpallama (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you're having such a hard time understanding the concept of "It's not the mistakes, but the refusal to correct the mistakes, that justifies a TBAN." I'm also saddened that you accuse me of doing so many bad things all the time. One of these days, I hope you can disagree with me without calling me a bad editor. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with regret, based on the analysis by Levivich and the general response of Soibangla, including especially their most recent comment, which suggests that they just don't get it, likely coupled with a bad case of IDHT. Under the circumstances I don't think they should be editing anything related to post 1932 US Politics. We can revisit the subject in six months and see if they have a better understanding of the problematic nature of their edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I actually would prefer the TBan be indefinite with the possibility of review after six months. I am still not seeing any acknowledgement from them that their edit was seriously inappropriate. And while I concede there is a sharp difference of opinion in this discussion as to whether or not it was a BLP vio, there is a strong consensus that it was at the very least UNDUE. Until Soibangla acknowledges this, they should not be editing anything dealing with AP2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, the primary reason for your perceived intransigence on my part is your persistent refusal to acknowledge some basic facts of how this topic arose in the first place. For example, in your opening paragraph of this thread, you state The source for these claims was an attack piece posted on Buzzfeed, having asserted on the Talk page that it was an op-ed from Buzzfeed, a yellow source, but I showed you there that it was a news report from BuzzfeedNews, a green source. MastCell also showed told you that BuzzfeedNews is a reliable source. Before you struck it, your findings of comments found a rough consensus that no BLP vio occurred, a rough consensus that there are questions of UNDUE and a rough consensus against any sanctions but now you assert there is a strong consensus that it was at the very least UNDUE (italics mine). And if that's the only offense remaining, that could have been — and should have been — properly handled by standard BRD in Talk, which you precipitously bypassed to seek what is tantamount to a death sentence for me — for one edit out of many thousands. You also continue to assert that you had the unilateral authority to ban me on the spot, even though MastCell correctly pointed out that because you reverted my edit, and we were the only participants in the ensuing Talk discussion, you were the INVOLVED party and should properly recuse yourself from asserting authority to ban me. I again refer to MastCell's comments, which succinctly summarize the core problems with your approach, and to which you have never responded. The fact that you never addressed my points on Talk, precipitously escalated to ANI, and then failed to address MastCell's analysis strongly suggests that you are knowingly, willfully and steadfastly ignoring strongly exculpatory evidence in my favor. You refuse to acknowledge any of this, and instead you insist that I simply won't accept any responsibility and further escalate the matter, now returning to calling for my permanent removal. I am truly at a loss to understand what is motivating this.

Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability...The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. — MastCell

Look, I readily concede from the all-hands-on-deck pile-on now occurring that sometimes I demonstrate a bad attitude, and can sometimes even be nasty, and sometimes make sloppy edits. People are telling me to get my act together. I get it. I really do. I will take it to heart and conscientiously endeavor to do better going forward. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Aquillon, and could this please be punted to WP:AE? Nothing is going to be accomplished by page long arguments from involved editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Initially, I was going to oppose this under the condition Soibangla recognized that the edit was UNDUE and agreed to be more careful in the future. But his response to Ad Orientem above where he tried to negotiate with him changed my mind, as did Levivich's post outlining more examples of policy-violating behavior. Though he certainly is the only editor who does it, adding every bit of negative trivial information you can find to an article about a person or organization you don't like is not an appropriate way to edit. Also, Siobangla recently edited the Fox News article with trivial information about Fox cropping a picture of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump using CNN as a source. The edit contained a clear BLP violation that called Epstein a "former Trump associate" (something the CNN article did not say). I reverted his edit with a summary indicating it was both a BLP violation and UNDUE. He then restored a modified version of this original edit.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and would suggest an indefinite topic ban, as this type of BLP violation has happened before. I suggest an indef ban because Soibangla was unable to understand that "a claim" and "the claim" are not synonymous:

• Soibangla (with support from Aquillion*) used an ambiguous statement in the NYT to make an unambiguous claim at the Jeffrey Epstein page, which constituted a BLP violation for Epstein's main victim, Virginia Giuffre by stating she admitted to having lied about seeing Bill Clinton on Epstein's island.*, *, *
• Soibangla was told by SlimVirgin in the related RS/N that the cited sentence in the NYT was ambiguous and couldn't be used to make the claim Soibangla was making *
• Soibangla never concedes, continues at Sarah's TP, and then doesn't show up to the related RfC to argue his case. For all we know, he still thinks he was right.

This false claim was live on the Epstein page for over a month because I was continually disallowed from correcting it. I'm not sure where an editor with the comprehension difficulties exemplified here belongs, but the American Politics area is troubled enough as it is. petrarchan47คุก 04:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a call to ban Soibangla to settle a personal grievance of yours. If so, I don't think you've shown that your pain rises to the level of a community concern. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not aggrieved by evidence of a BLP violating editor? Why not? petrarchan47คุก 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the publication of excerpts from your diary -- matters that have nothing to do with the question at hand. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla's repeated addition of content was a BLP and WP:V violation. He was told by multiple people that he is wrong to claim there is a trivial difference between "the" and "a"; he used WP:OR to make his edit to the Epstein page, and he was in error. He still to this moment argues that he was right, meaning this RfC, Newslinger, and Slim Virgin (and I) were wrong. This is deeply concerning. My addition here has nothing to do with a petty grievance. My intention is to alert fellow editors to a what I see as a serious problem justifying a ban. (I haven't kept a diary, by the way, since I was 15.) petrarchan47คุก 23:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that that encounter was among the most exasperating I've had on Wikipedia and I finally had to walk away. Your insistence then, and still now, that "a claim" was unspecified in the NYT article is belied by the fact the sentence clearly stated it was a claim that Clinton had visited Epstein's island, which Giuffre later conceded was false. You latched onto parsing the trivial difference between "the" and "a" while disregarding that the sentence clearly stated what "a claim" was about. My repeated efforts to explain this obvious reality to you proved futile. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you do still believe you are right. As Newslinger wrote: This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents, the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text. Guiffre never conceded it was false, and the NYT doesn't directly say she did. In fact, CNN directly counters she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office. Multiple editors tried to explain that you cannot conflate a nebulous "a claim" with "the [specific] claim", and indeed your doing so resulted in a false statement printed in Wikipedia that smeared a living person as a liar. You stated that The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false is the only way to accurately summarize (from NYT) The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. This should be worrying to all Wikipedians mainly because you don't seem capable of understanding the problem. petrarchan47คุก 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the Daily Mail: On one occasion, she adds, Epstein did invite two young brunettes to a dinner which he gave on his Caribbean island for Mr Clinton shortly after he left office. But, as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait, nor did he here: Epstein once threw a dinner party at the [Manhattan] house in Mr. Clinton’s honor. The former president never showed, but the magazine reported that the other guests included Mr. Trump. Guiffre never conceded it was false, and the NYT doesn't directly say she did. The NYT unambiguously reported she did, under oath this time, and no amount of parsing "a" versus "the" can change that. What really happened here is that years ago Giuffre made this claim, Clinton haters accepted it as established fact, incorporated it into their belief systems, it became an element in the evolving Pizzagate/Qanon theories, then years later the allegation was debunked and cognitive dissonance prevented the believers from accepting it. It's disgraceful that by removing that NYT article, WIkipedia has been made passively complicit in falsehoods that contribute to the craziest conspiracy theories ever concocted. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope editors can see the problems here. Soibangla is quoting the Daily Mail, although he acknowledges here that it is unreliable, he then changes the subject to a dinner party in NYC, and launches into a conspiracy theory. He ignores the result of the [RfC and the fact that Newslinger discovered there is no such claim in the source material (court documents) cited by the Times. Soibangla ignores the fact that Newslinger had to issue a request for correction to the Times. Soibangla instead wishes we hadn't removed the piece. He also ignores:

• Sarah SV: But which claim exactly? ... The WP article discusses "her previous claim" as though there was only one claim—that Clinton visited the island—and therefore that must be the claim that is false. I agree that we can't infer this from the NYT article
• Newslinger: This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents, the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text.
• CNN: According to a transcript of a video deposition Giuffre gave in 2016, she disputed aspects of a 2011 story in the Daily Mail that was based on a series of interviews Giuffre had given...she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office.
• There is now a second alleged witness to Clinton's island visit, as seen in the Netflix documentary, per: Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, and Fox: A longtime tech worker on the Caribbean island claims he once saw Clinton with Epstein in the porch area of Epstein’s villa home ... Previously, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims she became Epstein’s “sex slave” at age 17, said she recalled seeing Clinton on the island

petrarchan47คุก 01:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support T-Ban Confess my dealings with Soibangla have been less than pleasant, but, comeon, if the most recent 100 or so edits have been as problematic as the ones shown by Levivich and others above, with that sort of pattern does anyone expect that earlier edits to be any better? While old now, his BLP violating comment here about a WSJ contributing editor "Her opinion ain't worth a bucket of spit. She is notorious for just making stuff up. She is yet another compulsive liar. Period."[67] is not atypical. After I gave him a 3RR reminder he retaliated with [68].--MONGO (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Levivich's analysis, which I found weighted and occasionally bogus. --Calton | Talk 10:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Largely per Levivich which held a lot of weight for me. I honestly was not sure if I was going to give an opinion here. Me and Soibangla have interacted quite a bit and even had fun and joked around, but it is hard to deny the issues when laid out like this. When taken as a whole it seems to come off as a case of Sealioning. Never accepting that there are legitimate issues with the content they are trying to add to articles and attempting to transfer the onus to the person who reverted. Something all to common in the AP topic area and something that should be addressed. As noted above yes when reverted they generally head to the talk page and start a discussion, which is good. Though as I explained that is not where the issue ends. So when taken as a whole there are major disruptions cased by this.

I am also rather disturbed at the debate over the BuzzFeed News article. Yes RSP says generally reliable, but the purpose of RSP is not if something is or is not reliable but if it is generally reliable. That is a distinction that is worth mentioning, it is still a case by case basis. The community has consensus that it is generally reliable, not that it is always reliable. So we have BuzzFeed News with their source being The Daily Stormer attacking a BLP. In this instance I would argue that the BuzzFeed article is not a RS for that info on a BLP. There are also arguments while it is not a BLP vio it is just a UNDUE situation. That is false as well. If it is UNDUE for a BLP it is a BLP vio to push to include it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, anyway. This thread opened with what should've been a non-starter. It's a sourced statement (and not to an op-ed in an unreliable source, as was presented) that relates to an aspect of Tucker Carlson that gets an awful lot of press attention. It's not a BLP violation that needs addressing on a noticeboard. That doesn't mean I think it should be in either the Daily Stormer or the Carlson article (that particular language is probably undue for both), but it was added one time, reverted, and not restored ... it's a content dispute. As for Levivich's list above, I agree with Aquillion about some of it, and there are some things that are minorly concerning. I checked the AN/ANI history for other instances of Soibangla being reported here, assuming that to jump so quickly to a tban proposal there must be some history, but there's none I can find. I see one 3RR block from six years ago and one AE request that was closed as a content dispute without action (as this should've been). Soibangla, if this is closed without action, maybe take it as advice to try to err on the side of caution and discussion a bit more? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Levivich, especially this part: Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN.Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Without commenting on soibangla’s overall conduct, I’d like to object to User:Levivich’s misleading characterization of the discussion at Talk:Rudy Giuliani, where he seems to imply that I found fault with soibangla at that page. I'd also like to thank User:Grandpallama for correcting and clarifying the situation; without his ping I might not have noticed this thread. In fact I did not criticize soibangla’s talk page conduct; I merely warned him and the other editor for edit warring. My talk page criticisms were directed to the other editor, who was repeatedly disparaging and insulting soibangla. Please disregard that item in Levivich’s list of accusations. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  MelanieN, sorry, what misleading characterization do you see in what I wrote: The history of Rudy Giuliani and like most of Talk:Rudy Giuliani (see, e.g., "The two of you need to STOP the edit warring"), including comments like [94] [95] [96] [97]? I'm not "implying" that you found fault, I'm quoting your explicit finding of fault. Are you saying the two of them were not edit warring on Rudy Giuliani? Looking at the history of the page, it looks to me like they were. Those four diffs are the specific concerns I had at that talk page, and they're all by soiblanga, not by you. I guess I should have just said "edit warring at Rudy Giuliani with another editor" rather than quoting you; I'll do that next time; and it certainly wasn't my intent to mischaracterize you, but I didn't realize that you didn't think they were edit warring? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I did warn them both for edit warring. My point here is that I did not criticize soibangla’s talk page conduct - which is what was implied by your citing me along with a bunch of links to things soibangla said. If anything, I thought soibangla was remaining commendably calm and content-focused, rather than getting baited into attacking back. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand how anyone could perceive that implication in what I wrote. Sorry, it wasn't intended. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As per Aquillon and Grandpallama. A Tban is way overboard. Curdle (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support largely per Levivich's analysis. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Aquillon, Grandpallama, and Rhododendrites laid it out well. Soibangla can be more careful, but I do not see sanctionable content here rising to the level of anything beyond a word of advice. Neutrality^talk 19:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The initial content dispute should have been discussed further at article talk or possibly BLPN, there was no conduct issue that needed to be escalated to ANI. It's also unclear what "...disregarded WP:Consensus that was against adding such material" in the tban proposal refers to since the material in question doesn't seem to have been previously discussed, perhaps Atsme could clarify?

Regarding the sources, CNN and Buzzfeed News are generally reliable, especially in cases like these where they are giving factual accounts of what took place and quoting those involved. The rest of Levivich's list varies in quality, as others have pointed out, but again there's nothing that can't be resolved through our normal editorial processes. –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This request was triggered by an instance in which Soibangla made a single reasonably-sourced edit; the edit was reverted on WP:DUE grounds; and discussion ensued at the talkpage. In other words, a standard WP:BRD cycle. There was no BLP violation, as consensus above has made clear. He made a bold edit; discussion & consensus led to the conclusion that the material didn't belong in the article; and as far as I can tell, Soibangla has accepted that and not tried to reinstate it or to edit-war. I don't really get the efforts to paint this as some sort of abhorrent behavior, nor to compel an apology for it. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: This entire process has been a sham from the getgo, it was predicated on a false pretext, and it should be immediately closed without further consideration. There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence, growing by the day, now beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this began with shoddy police work, leading to a fraudulent indictment, followed by prosecutorial misconduct which over time escalated from merely improper to egregious to actually malicious. It opened the door to an angry mob to storm into the courtroom with torches and pitchforks demanding vigilante justice for a variety of unrelated grievances and grudges, often presenting dubious evidence. With increasing intensity, the prosecutor has attempted to coerce me into making a false confession for a crime that did not happen, to take a plea deal for a lighter sentence, but if I don't capitulate to this coercion, I will be sentenced to death — all to make me the fall guy for the spectacular blunder he made that he cannot own up to and must cover up. Because the original charge was bogus, this topic should never have been opened, and the ensuing vote is thereby invalid. This farce has visited a great wrong on me, I am being framed and railroaded, which is needlessly (but not necessarily unintentionally) inflicting enormous and irreparable damage to my reputation, poisoning the well for my future participation on Wikipedia. This is the stuff of a kangaroo court found in totalitarian regimes. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. I would gently suggest it's in your best interest to let this play out now based upon all the evidence that's been submitted, because further commenting can only hurt, not help, you. And whatever the validity of the initial claims (which I obviously had serious concerns with), if people feel you're engaging in battleground behavior now in this discussion, that can absolutely be grounds for a sanction. I understand the frustration that would lead to the courtroom rhetoric and the deliberate hyperbole, but I don't think it is to your advantage. Grandpallama (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. Talk about acute rhetorical excesses which prove why the ban is needed... El_C 23:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest taking a look at the evidence I provided and the responses from Soibangla; I think it proves a ban is warranted and that some sort of mentorship should be required for Soibangla to continue editing any topic area. There are staggering comprehension issues and I would argue that to ignore them is grossly unfair to other editors. petrarchan47คุก 01:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping yourself here. Several of us have opposed this proposal due to lack of merit in the complaint(s) it's predicated upon, but have expressed concern about [your approach, more or less]. These comments exacerbate those concerns and certainly aren't going to convince any in the support column. My advice: you've made your frustration known; the time now is to take it down a few levels and abstain from commenting unless it's going to be measured and at least somewhat reflective. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Excuse this wall of text, but the support votes are based on Levivich's egregiously deceptive wall-of-text, so it needs rebutting. The support votes are based on a bad and misleading analysis by Levivich who has a track record of posting similarly shoddy analyses to get editors banned whom he disagrees with and who edit against his POV while he similarly skews the facts to unflinchingly defend the most problematic editors on this encyclopedia for the sole reason that they edit content in a way that he personally likes. When Levivich sought to get me banned, he literally cited examples of me edit-warring with white supremacist sockpuppets with 88 in their username, genocide denying IPs and other insanity as an example of my horrible edit-warring ways. This is not an editor who engages in careful nuanced analysis of a situation and weighs evidence accordingly. Instead, he sifts through everything in an editor's past and drowns the discussion with a Gish gallop mixture of bad evidence, straight-up deceptions, and of course the occasional mistake that any editor might make. Some editors are then impressed with what superficially appears to be a thorough and well-formatted, even though it falls apart upon closer examination. Going through Levivich's list of 12 bullet points, only three of them are problematic (and all of them would be fixed by instructing Soibangla of how the attribution rule works precisely and that BLP doesn't just refer to biographies) and the rest of the bullet points contain errors by Levivich or are nothingburgers:

1. "this is not Carlson's BLP" does indicate that the user doesn't fully realize that BLP doesn't merely refer to "biographies" (which is a common mistake that non-veteran editors might make). Now he knows better. Nothingburger.
2. Levivich falsely claims that RSP says that Mother Jones "requires attribution for politics" (it says MoJo "may" neeed attribution). Furthermore, the content that Soibangla added (sourced to Mojo) is blatantly accurate (and confirmed by other RS), meaning that the "may" qualifier doesn't apply in any way whatsoever.[69]
3. Analyses by Media Matters should be attributed, but their analysis is 100% correct and verifiable. Making the editor aware of the attribution requirement (even in cases when content is 100% accurate and verifiable) would solve the issue. Nothingburger.
4. There is nothing in the slightest wrong with citing CNN, a RS, in an article about Fox News[70]. It's embarrassing for someone to actually type this out and present it as a reason to ban someone, but it does not surprise me in the slightest that this is the level that Levivich stoops to.
5. I agree that the Obama content should be attributed[71], but it doesn't seem like a big issue (there is lots of RS content, including academic, on Obama and his rhetoric on race, which has often been characterized as unusually conservative). I saw the edit, and considered reverting it or exploring the sourcing, but decided not to, because I was aware of the existing academic debate on the topic. It's a nothingburger. It also conflicts with your claim that Soibangla has a pro-Democrat bias.
6. There's nothing at all wrong with the content on Obama and police[72], beyond the usual tweaks to language and placement that applies to most content on this encyclopedia. The editor uses multiple secondary RS, which would be sufficient on their own as citations for the content, but also does readers the additional service of adding supplementary primary sources (which are not needed, but are helpful additions). As for picking one particular quote[73] (in addition to all the secondary RS content), our bios on presidents and political figures are filled to the brim with primary sourced quotes. I have a very strict anti-primary source policy (which many other editors do not have, definitely not Levivich), but there's nothing in the slightest sanctionable about this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. That Levivich uses this as an example gets to the rotten heart of his case: [74]. It is 100% a verifiable falsehood and the RS clearly identifies it as false. Although it doesn't explicitly use the term "false", it just delineates how it's false. Countless other RS explicitly call it false. Nothingburger.
8. The Rudy Giuliani diffs, which were misrepresented to portray Soibangla as having been scolded by an admin, have been debunked by other editors, including the admin in question. Literally in the same comment by MelanieN that Levivich misleadingly quotes, she says that a particular editor is "the one who keeps trying to change or remove longstanding content, you need to explain and establish your reasons for doing so; you can’t just keep doing it." Was she saying it to Soibangla? No. She was saying it to the editor who Soibangla was tangling with. Levivich doesn't present such context, because it flies completely against the case that he's trying to make. It's infuriating to read such deception, and it saddens me that some lazy editors read Levivich's well-formatted wall of text, take Levivich's argument in good faith, and presume that Soibangla is an extremely troublesome editor on the basis of this deceptive analysis.
9. I checked the first diff: [75]. Who cares? What is this? Nothingburger. Throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if something will stick.
10. It's not nice to respond that way to Doug Weller. Many editors who are engaged in content disputes do not respond well when they get templated or get instructed to follow the rules.
11. In this bullet point, Levivich is whining about how Soibangla is anti-Republican. However, as his diffs have already shown, Soibangla added content to Obama's bio which could clearly be construed as negative. But then again, Soibangla also added content about how Mike Pence brazenly lied and Levivich personally disagrees that it was a lie (which points to Levivich's personal politics), so Soibangla must anti-Republican and so biased that he is not fit for editing.
12. Levivich tries to portray himself as a neutral observer with his "Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits [BUT YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY BAN THEM]" bullet point, yet Levivich has shown a strong bias on these subjects and has already tried to ban editors with a different POV and staunchly defended way more troublesome editors who fit his POV. If someone were to present these diffs as evidence of SashiRolls's troublesome editing, it would rightfully be laughed off this noticeboard and Levivich would be calling for a boomerang on the proposer of the sanction.

• A final note: it's unbelievable to see Levivich present himself as an ardent principled stickler for high-quality sources and consensus when Levivich last year sought to scrub RS content from 2018 United States elections (because he personally disagreed with what the RS were saying and he could only come up with rubbish op-eds to defend his wanted to juxtapose RS content with misleading pro-Republican talking points of what the article should say), and the dysfunction went so far that he even brazenly removed content[76] from the page after it was approved by consensus in a RfC[77]. Nothing that he accuses Soibangla of reaches that level of tendentiousness. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for calling it "well formatted". I appreciate the compliment. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Pure WP:BATTLEFIELD of an indictment, filled with vague innuendo. Accusing Levivich of the very thing being submitted. This account is not matter of fact. It descends the level of debate. Much like with Soibangla's latest statement. Way too much vitriol, which is not conducive to a healthy discussion. El_C 02:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Was that wall of text intended to defend Soibangla or shit on Levivich? PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, all due respect to your concerns about the level of discource, but Pure WP:BATTLEFIELD of an indictment, filled with vague innuendo is a pretty accurate description of the evidence Levivich presented (though it was maybe not so vague). Multiple editors have called bullshit on it, and dissected portions of it; I would think every admin should be alarmed that Melanie, strategically not pinged when she was quoted, felt obligated to come to this discussion just to object to the characterization of her actions and selective quotation of her statements. And every editor (including admins) should be alarmed at the "CNN is fake news" dog whistle in this discussion; arguing that CNN is not a high quality (i.e., reliable) source is the domain of WP:NOTHERE SPAs. There's an understandable focus on Levivich's diffs and claims because they have served as a hinge for many of the support votes. Grandpallama (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grandpallama, arguing that CNN is not a high quality (i.e., reliable) source ... are you kidding? Did you just say "high quality" = "reliable"? That's not true. "Reliable" is like a minimum standard, and "high quality" would be above that. CNN is not a "high quality" sources. That doesn't mean it's fake news. More concerning to me than soiblanga's conduct is how many AP2 editors apparently have ridiculously bad ideas about source quality. It's bad enough that you don't think the original edit was a BLP violation -- it's even worse that you think CNN is a "high quality" source. "High quality" refers to academic sources and the very top tier journalist sources like BBC and NYT. It doesn't cover CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or Buzzfeed News. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, admins and editors should be alarmed. Grandpallama (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who cannot perceive the difference in quality between CNN and The New York Times should not be editing AP2. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grandpallama, sorry, but I still don't think derision and battleground rhetoric ought to have any place in this discussion. If editors, of either side, feel so strongly about the subject matter (AP2) to the point that they can't help themselves but to descend to that level of debate, they should probably just not participate in it from the outset. Again, that also includes Soibangla themselves. I am rather firm in that position. El_C 14:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I am not seeing Grandpallama expressing any strong view as to AP2 subject matter. I do see that Grandpallama has expressed concern as to Levivich's conduct, and that conduct has been a significant factor in this thread and discussion. As you may recall, @TonyBallioni: raised similar concerns about Levivich's conduct and participation in community discussions, which were then documented by various editors at a June 2020 ANI thread. Given the unfortunate possibility that some editors on the current thread may rely on Levivich's post largely because it is a well-formatted list of assertions that is onerous to fact-check, I do not think Grandpallama's participation was out of bounds here, where everyone's behavior is potentially on the line. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling it "well-formatted". I really appreciate everybody complimenting me on the formatting of my posts. SPECIFICO, do you think our colleagues are so stupid as to simply accept whatever I say without checking it for themselves? Are you willing to go "on record" as claiming that everyone voting "support" has been bamboozled by the formatting of my post? Or do you think our colleagues think for themselves? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, my complaint was never about Grandpallama's behaviour, I think you misunderstood to whom the reference was intended. It was indended toward this comment (incomplete diff) by Snooganssnoogans and this comment by Soibangla. El_C 15:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Levivich, I was just quoting @Snooganssnoogans: that your indictment was "well-formatted". But your quick retort with a silly straw-man rhetorical question is the same kind of unconstructive behavior by you that was discussed at the previous ANI and now this one. For the record: I do not think we have stupid WP edtiors or WP editors who are easily fooled. But, I do think we have editors who are busy IRL and on WP and do not always take the time to do the exhaustive fact-checking of links and their contexts that, in the given your style of argumentation, often reveals misrepresentations such as have been documented by other editors here. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bummed to hear you don't think it was well-formatted. Do you think that any of the editors !voting "support" have carefully reviewed the evidence, or are you saying that nobody supporting a sanction has carefully reviewed the evidence? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeYou can’t topic ban someone on the basis of such flimsy evidence. P-K3 (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ArbCom Principles - It is rather disconcerting that our BLP policy has been so misunderstood, and in some instances dismissed, or at least not understood in compliance with the precedent set by ArbCom in the following case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi#Principles. I have listed the most relevant principals that apply here regarding the defamatory material and the attempt to imply "guilt by association" when the two are not associated at all, which makes the attempt even worse:

  Reliable sources for biographical material

  3) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources requires that any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

  • Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).
  • Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers which print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip ask yourself consider if the information is true and if it is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

  Quotation of material from an unreliable source

  8) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

  Guilt by association

  10) Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.

• I'd say the above covers it quite well but I will add that WP:REDFLAG also applies here, and so does WP:LABEL. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Insufficient evidence of intractable issues: no prior recent sanctions or ANI discussion; the edit in question was discussed but not reinstated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per Levivich's analysis, which I find very convincing. This edit by Soibangla is not a one-time situation, and it is essential that Wikipedia strictly adheres to NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone who cites Levivich's egregiously deceptive analysis at this point in the discussion should have their vote fully disregarded. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest Close As the OP I note that this discussion has been open for four full days (+). That is long enough and those who wished to comment have had a reasonable opportunity to do so. I'm not a fan of the never ending debates that just keep going over the same ground one sometimes finds on noticeboards. Perhaps an univolved admin can review the discussion and close it. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see closing a discussion that is ongoing, with additions by editors who are raising new points in response to others. Don't we generally wait until the thread has died down before reaching a conclusion about what's under consideration? SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you not seen this close, which led to this review? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sanctions. I do not believe this is a BLP violation so egregious that it deserved to be brought straight to ANI with no intervening BRD process. This entire mess is because people have misunderstood the difference between Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News. Soibangla quoted a legitimate news source, Buzzfeed News, which made the statement. There are legitimate concerns that this might not be DUE as it was applied, but the insistence that it was a blatant BLP violation seems over the top. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I am not confusing BF with BFN. I think this edit is a BLP violation because it is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY statement without extraordinary sourcing, and that makes it "poorly sourced" within the meaning of WP:BLP. Further, the single source, BFN, is repeating something from The Daily Stormer, and per the Arbcom principle linked above, "Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia". I'm quite alarmed to see a number of editors say that this edit is an OK edit. It's BFN repeating The Daily Stormer saying someone is a friend of white supremacists. If it said "so-and-so is Jewish", there would be wide agreement that the one source wasn't enough to call the guy Jewish. Cuz we'd need at least a statement of self-identification for that. But somehow a single source repeating a non-RS is enough to say he's a white supremacist. In my book, it's much worse to call someone a white supremacist than to call them Jewish. Our standard of sourcing for "white supremacist" should be at least as rigorous as it is for ethnicity or religion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever the merits, Levivich has again set up a straw man. The analogous statement would, of course, be if it said "X said, 'A said so-and-so is Jewish'" NOT "X said so-and-so is Jewish". The former is easy to verify, which turns out to have been the case here. Note, I am not commenting on whether the initial edit was DUE. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a straw man, it's the heart of it. What alarms me is specifically (no pun intended) that you (and others) think "[white supremacist] said [person] is a white supremacist" is different than "[person] is a white supremacist". The two statements have the same meaning and effect: to suggest to our reader that [person] is a white supremacist. The edit in question exactly follows the format of [white supremacist] said [person] is a white supremacist, and it's only cited to one source, and not even a top-notch source at that (not academic, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia has always made a fundamental distinction between in-text attribution and Wikipedia-voice ("According to X, Y is a..." vs. "Y is a..."). In one case, X is making a claim which we report (if it's notable/due-weight/etc), and in the other case Wikipedia is asserting something as fact. That distinction is codified in basic site policy, so it's incorrect to claim that these two statements are equivalent. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Levivich, speaking of attribution, you attribute a view to me that has no basis in anything I have ever done or said on Wikipedia. That's may not rise to a personal attack, but it is disingenuous and couterproductive. Yet another straw man piggybacked on the soft shoulders of the other two stuffed puppets. You repeatedly make arguments, many but not all of which are logically correct, that have no basis in fact and are unsupported by the vague and misrepresented "evidence" you cite. For the record, I don't have any opinion about Daily Stormer, Tucker Carlson, or any other content that's been raised in this dispute. I do think that Levivich's behavior in this thread qualifies him for a TBAN and I would support that if anyone would like to propose it. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You just love making threats against editors. Anytime you want to have the community review both of our recent AP2 edits, you go ahead and start the thread. I'd welcome it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per MastCell, Snoogans and others. This discussion has gone on long enough, so I won't repeat their arguments again, but suffice to say a topic ban is not warranted here. Calidum 17:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This was a content dispute that should not have been escalated. The WEIGHT issue is irrelevant. Soibangla did not edit war. The purported evidence of other additional or tangential problems has been debunked by several editors. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment(!voted above) : A number of editors who object to the tban do so based on the not unreasonable stance that the single edit to the Daily Stormer article was insufficient to warrant a tban. I think many supporting the tban, myself included, would agree. The issue is this is part of a pattern of both bad editorial choices compounded by BATTLEGROUND behavior when confronted. I gave two examples above from my personal experience with this editor. In one case they were making very POV edits [[78]] which were edit warred into the article after myself and another editor objected. Rather than engage in a good faith discussion Soibangla accused someone of lying. Their statement was vague enough so they could deny that either myself or the other opposing editor was specifically the target of the statement but they refused to identify the editors in question [[79]]. I think a question by an admin prompted their eventual striking of the comment. This pattern of highly questionable edit then hostility towards anyone who questions the edit is a repeating pattern. Here Soibangla casts aspersions (suggesting I don't like them) and then says that is evidence they are doing good work here [[80]]. Right or wrong, how is suggesting another editor "doesn't like you" not BATTLEGROUND? The suggestion that that making an editor "dislike" someone is proof they are improving Wikipedia is really a problem. This certainly isn't behavior reserved for me. Here Awilley tells Soibangla to discuss content, not contributors[[81]]. This was an informal warning before Soibangla discussed me rather than our content disagreement. Soibangla seemed to ignore the warning and was warned just a month later by the same admin[[82]] for this edit summary [[83]]. Looking through Soibangla's edit history and you can find more BATTLEGROUND edit summaries [[84]], [[85]]. None of this improves civility in controversial topic areas. Springee (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One problem that I and other editors have is that there has been no formal warning given to soibangla. It's not mandatory to receive such before a TBAN is considered, but the problem should be so pervasive and disruptive that it's obvious to all that skipping right past the warning stage is necessary. In this case, not only has there not been any warning, but the TBAN proposal went straight to 6 months. It seems very excessive, especially given that blocks/bans are supposed to be preventative; in a good faith situation, an editor should get that warning first and a chance to demonstrate correction. The question of the proposal isn't whether or not problematic behavior has been demonstrated, but whether the proposed action is suitable in proportion to the behavior, and whether it is necessary to prevent further problematic behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. I think Soibangla has previously been warned enough by enough editors that a formal warning isn't required for this tban. However, if consensus doesn't support a Tban I would suggest a warning including strict adherence to CIVIL and rules related to BLP. It's clear many editors see a problem here. Springee (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC) underline edit added for clarification Springee (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I think a formal warning is probably merited. There seems to have been some disagreement in the discussion before the proposal about whether the edit that prompted this actually constituted a BLP violation, but I think I see fairly clear consensus that battleground language and attitude is present, and should be addressed. Grandpallama (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good summary. I can live with that. I admit that I'm still taken aback by this aggressive comment that soibangla had made right in this very ANI. That does not reveal a lot of self-reflection, I'm sorry to say. Some recognition is due about maintaining nominal decorum. Stressful times, I get it. But let's retain some perspective. El_C 22:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right and even though I would prefer a tban, perhaps its best to go the other way. A warning that states zero tolerance for further battleground behavior, further focusing on the editor rather than the content and failures to follow BLP policies should address the issue. If Soilbangla follows the rules then those of us who supported the tban should be satisfied as the problem will be addressed. If El_C's concerns are correct any admin will be within their discretion to tban for failing to heed the warning. Springee (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, it is an aggressive comment, and it does not reveal much self-reflection. And if it were the inciting incident, I might feel differently. But being brought to ANI is going to make someone angry and defensive, especially after seeing the majority of the admins who had weighed in pre-proposal express skepticism, and so the indignation of that post isn't terribly surprising to me. It's not unlike the raging that you see editors engage in after a block to work their frustration out of their system. It certainly adds weight to the argument that a warning is in order. Grandpallama (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per WP:NOPUNISH Blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. Soibangla's bahvior demonstrates an understanding and does not require a a TBAN in order to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Because of this fact I was troubled by the No-Deal comment from Ad Orientum. Lightburst (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to formalize my suggestion that this user be indefinitely topic banned from American Politics (post 1932) as a repeat WP:BLP offender. To borrow from the OP, I believe serious concerns exist regarding [Soibangla's] general competence to be editing subjects of a highly sensitive and controversial nature.

At the Jeffrey Epstein article, Soibangla inserted a false statement about Virginia Roberts Giuffre, and undid my attempts to remove the BLP violation. Multiple editors and admins attempted to explain the problems with his edits to no avail. There is no reason to believe he would not repeat the same mistake again.

• Aug 12, 2019
• Sept 5
• Sept 7.

His source is a nebulous statement in an August 19, 2019 NYT article: The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. In an early October RS/N, Newslinger * and Sarah SV joined me in saying that the NYT should not be used to support Soibangla's text because it is too ambiguous. Soibangla continues to declare the NYT is unambiguous *, and on Oct 12 removes from the Epstein page an accurate summary of the NYT piece, along with a Forbe's-cited mention of Clinton on the island. Newslinger tries to explain to Soibangla that the claim is unspecified, it is "about", meaning "related to". Soi calls this "insanity". Newslinger tries again but is ignored. The RfC unanimously decided to remove the NYT piece; Newslinger wrote This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents, the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text.

Soibangla still believes he was right and we were all wrong, saying on July 13 The NYT unambiguously reported...and no amount of parsing "a" versus "the" can change that. and It's disgraceful that by removing that NYT article, WIkipedia has been made passively complicit in falsehoods that contribute to the craziest conspiracy theories ever concocted. petrarchan47คุก 00:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a proposal for a 6 month topic ban that looks unlikely to be closed with action (we'll see, I guess). Now that we're here, you're proposing a more severe sanction ... by introducing diffs from last year? And to look at the subject of the diffs it looks like a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion in which consensus was not in Soibangla's favor and he/she thinks we got it wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. If the edit war were still going on, that would be one thing, but you're bringing up an old dispute and holding up Soibangla's disagreement with the result as a smoking gun? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  More Tales from the Crypt. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, your characterization is entirely correct. Petrarchan47 effectively insisted the NYT reported this:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made was untrue

so Petrarchan47 asserted the NYT did not specify the nature of the claim, when actually they reported this:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue

After my attempts to show the sentence was unambiguous proved futile, I abandoned the matter in exasperation, an RfC was later opened, other editors reached a consensus without my participation, and I have ever since accepted that consensus although I continue to insist it is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ms96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I encountered this user only just recently at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory; I've been active at that page recently but didn't notice their active discussion at the top of the talk page until today. They're one of a seemingly endless string of accounts coming to the page to advocate for including irrelevant demographic statistics to this article on a batshit crazy white supremacist theory that Jews are conspiring with government agents around the world to exterminate the "white race". Since Ms96 opened their version of the discussion on 15 June, they had managed to convince exactly nobody of the merits of including these irrelevant statistics but was still going on about it, so I closed the discussion. They reverted my close (another editor restored it) and then took to my talk page to continue the argument, which I did not engage, just warned them that they had already been advised about AP2 discretionary sanctions. Another editor did engage briefly but Ms96's last comment there was a loose legal threat which I removed. (Not diffed because it probably doesn't meet the WP:NLT threshold, but they're definitely escalating).

Afterwards, I reviewed some more of this user's recent work:

• On Reverse racism, Ms96 made a bold edit to the article's lede stating bluntly that reverse racism is a real social phenomenon, rather than the sourced consensus that it's alleged by conservatives as an attack on affirmative action programs, or the zero-sum white supremacist belief that all societal gains by non-whites come at whites' expense, basing their edit solely on the existence of discriminatory policies against whites in Zimbabwe (Mugabeism). When another editor tried to incorporate some of their useful Mugabeism material into the article in appropriate context, Ms96 reverted to their preferred "reverse racism is real" version. Their edit was later entirely reverted by another editor. Ms96 again started a discussion which failed to convince anyone of their POV.
• On Far-right politics in the United Kingdom (diff) they removed a see-also link to Right-wing terrorism, wondering in their edit summary "how this POV has remained intact so long". The link is not POV: an entire half of the section it heads is devoted to UK right wing entities which have been described as terrorist organizations.
• On Racism in Zimbabwe, the edit summary in this revert speaks for itself: "Your actions in white washing the issue of racism against whites is strikingly alarming."
• On Talk:Black Lives Matter, they're pushing for the organization to be labelled Marxist in Wikipedia's voice. They claim to have sources but what they really have is a novel synthesis based on sources identifying various BLM "leaders" as Marxist. Several editors have rejected this but they're still going as of today.

Furthermore, in response to being warned about edit warring for reverting my close (a warning that was probably not due, to be honest) they responded by attacking the editor who warned them, and others who replied. These attacks contain such gems as:

• "Things won't change as long as the left breeze sweeps through WP ... freedom of non-profit organisations in a Western democracy is a complete hoax ... have fun with your falsehoods."
• "A Tribute to My Left Fellas in the Talk Page of the Carcass of a Canceled Retarded Rural Psychopath" (in a comment directed at a named user, whose name I purposely omitted)

I believe, to put it lightly, that this user should not be near anything having to do with post-1932 American politics, right-wing politics globally, or anything to do with racism or race relations, and propose that they be banned from those topics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their talk page discussion makes it clear that they are WP:NOTHERE and can be expected to be a continuing disruption. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC) O3000 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the source they cited to call BLM Marxist is a hyper-McCarthyian conspiracy theorist work asserting that Marxists have been infiltrating the government and that their influences include FDR's New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and Johnson's War on poverty -- not to mention Black Islam. That alone should result in at least a topic ban from all political articles, if not history and race as well. There's also them bending over backwards to defensively re-interpret someone else's utterly false statement that only a single Guardian article is used "to declare white genocide in South Africa a myth" ^{(that thread quickly closed as NOTHERE pot-stirring)}. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the suggestions of topic bans in multiple areas, the clear POV-pushing and conspiracy nonsense, and their cavalier use of slurs and PA's, I have simply indeffed them for WP:NOTHERE. Another admin is welcome to unblock them with a reasonable request and at least a politics topic ban, but I see no need to waste time on this thread and user. They're just another time-sink who wants to right the great wrongs that folks perceive on Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Space Launch System, I and Moamem were engaged in a content dispute last month. A compromise was eventually proposed by Eggsaladsandwich, and while both of us resisted it at first, both of us eventually accepted it. Slightly prior to this, I'd noticed Moamem had engaged in off-site canvassing (Redacted), and made an entry on the talk page. Moamem was warned by PhilipTerryGraham in this edit against doing so again.

When Moamem expressed discontent with the existing compromise earlier this month, I opened an RfC to try and build a consensus that would settle the issue for good, knowing that my hands were not entirely clean during the last dispute and hoping that a wider selection of editors would result in a more productive discussion. Things seemed promising, and while the RfC is still far from finished, a consensus seemed to be emerging for a slightly-altered version of the compromise. Earlier today, however, Moamem posted six posts to subforums of (Redacted). Each post was identical in content, presenting his argument and a warped interpretation of my own, then calling for users to join the discussion on the talk page. He did not consult with anyone at Talk:Space Launch System before doing this.

Some of these posts may have been removed by site moderators since then, but here's the list as it was:

• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)

Here are two screenshots (Redacted) showing the content of one of the posts, in case they're taken down.

His allegation that I am a moderator of (Redacted) is true, but it's an unpaid volunteer position. I have an interest in the program, not a conflict of interest. My opinions are mine, and mine alone. Either way, I don't think it's relevant to his repeated disregard of Wikipedia:Canvassing.

I personally believe his actions violate all the criterion for inappropriate notification. The scale is mass, the message is biased, it's been posted at least in part to partisan audiences, and it's non-transparent as it takes place off-site and existing discussion participants weren't notified. As he has already been warned against his behavior, I find it hard to believe it was done in good faith, either. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 18:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's (Redacted) further evidence of canvassing. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jadebenn: I'd suggest you're skirting a violation of WP:OUTING with what you've linked here - an email to Arbcom is probably a better course of action here. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alfie: Apologies, didn't realize. Thank you to the admin who took care of that. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. PhilipTerryGraham never warned or said anything about asking for input outside Wikipedia! He warned me about being balanced in my request as I said in a comment I deleted since : "I could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!". A wording he deemed reprehensible(assessment I totally agree with and subsequently deleted my comment). I also asked him specifically about asking about offsite input saying : "I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase?". his answer was : "It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you."
2. I had reservation about the "compromise" right away. I only reluctantly accepted it because we were the only 2 participating in the conversation currently and it was my opinion against yours (even tho 6 different people disagreed with you in the past 6 months). But once a 7th person expressed it's disagreement with you it was time to open this issue. And rightfully so 4 more people showed up with the exact same point of view. That seems like a consensus to me!
3. I published a very balanced post on 6 of the biggest Space communities on reddit because of the lack of interest of Wikipedia contributors. I didn't post on r/SpaceLaunchSystem the most appropriate subreddit because you banned/cesored me from it for no reason other than not liking my opinions and despite backlash from your own community (one of them even showed up here). I made sure to include your name so you'll be notified right away, so I was trying to be as transparent as possible and invited you to give your opinion on the posts.
4. While I tried to be as balanced as possible. We all have our biases. Therefore I told you multiple times that I am open to edit my post to accommodate any issue you have with them. But you failed to give me any issue you have with my posts.
5. I still don't know the exact issue you have with my reddit post besides you not wanting people to participate in the discussion because you're the only one with that opinion!
6. Now that people are starting to show up and your position is becoming untenable you're trying to play the referee
7. @Alfie: I never published any personal info of his (I don't have any anyways). Moamem (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MEATPUPPET. Asking for help off-site is prohibited, as we build consensus based on our policies and guidelines, not voting. At this point, the best thing you could do is to delete your off-site requests or ask them not to interfere with that process. Woodroar (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar:Hi, thanks for your input. From prior mod interactions and the link you're giving me, this seems to be directed to those trying to skew the debate in a single direction (by contacting family, friends, or like-minded people). I did no such a thing. I went to important space communities that are totally neutral ( or even skewed toward supporting SLS like r/nasa) to get their input after we reached an dead end with Jadebenn and the rest of the Wikipedia didn't seem interested in participating in the conversation. It just happen that Jadebenn realizing that his untenable position is falling apart is now trying to play the referee! I don't know what I was supposed to do in that situation? - Moamem (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not only about canvassing for like-minded input. It's about requesting people from off-site—people who don't understand our policies or guidelines or behavioral expectations—to influence a decision on-wiki. Because here's the thing: it doesn't matter if a hundred people show up and vote your way, the better policy-based argument wins even if it's brought up by a single editor on the other side. Literally a single editor. But meanwhile, the people responsible for mediating the dispute need to sift through all the junk arguments. Those people are all volunteers, too. They're not getting paid to do any of this, just like I'm not getting paid to explain this to you. Meatpuppetry is a lousy thing to do on any site, but it's extra lousy here because it doesn't do anything but waste time. And possibly get all those new people and you sanctioned for it. So the best thing you can do right now is make a good-faith effort to ask them to stop. Woodroar (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well from the link you gave me, the reading I did and my interaction with PhilipTerryGraham who if I understand correctly is an admin, clearly stated that requesting offsite input is ok as long as the request is neutral, see our conversation here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space_Launch_System#Mass_Off-Site_Canvassing

We got more input in 24h than we had in the last 9 months. This input was extremely positive, respectful ans insightful at the exception of one IP user that engaged in Edit Warring with Jadebenn who has himself committed a 3RR violation subsequently! Leijurv present is this conversation is a testament to the quality on the content we got!

Since it seems that off site input is not forbidden but only needs to be balanced. And that I did my best to be as neutral as possible while offering correct any bias Jadebenn could find (while never getting any feedback from him except this complaint). I am still not sure what his issue is beside trying to silence me? - Moamem (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moamem: I am not an admin. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moamem: I did not discover this from anything off-site, I actually discovered it from this very complaint about what happened off-site (I read ANI from time to time). Leijurv (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to Arbcom as Alfie suggested, but haven't received any kind of response, and it's been almost 24 hours. Is that a normal response time? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 15:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is my experience that the Committee does respond in a timely fashion to emergencies (though WP:EMERGENCY should be the first point of contact there), which this isn't. I'm sure they'll get back to you soon. El_C 15:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner than I thought! Just got a receipt from them. Guess I should've waited a while longer before getting nervous. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 15:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the disruption is escalating on the article and talk page with random IPs edit warring and the 2 main protagonists adding and deleting questionable sections on the talk page. Could an admin protect the page and warm/block whoever needs to be. Thanks --McSly (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@McSly: Apologies for the talk page disruption. Regardless of whether or not that content should've stayed up, I really shouldn't have poked the bear by being the one to delete it. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@McSly: Even though technically Jadebenn did 3RR on the mainspace SLS page I think it was completely justified in maintaining consensus that was being discussed at that moment on the talk page in a long term RfC, on top of which the IP editors were using misleading edit summaries such as "Unsourced" while removing information with quite a few sources. I don't know enough to say about the talk page. Leijurv (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware I was on my fourth revert. I thought I was on my third. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a non-involved user: I'm sorry, but seeing you two are having conflict, especially what have Moamem done towards you i'm compelled to propose a interaction ban between you and Moamem. SMB​99​thx Email! 07:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the nature of an IBAN correctly, than I don't think I oppose it. I have no reason to seek out Moamem absent his continued provocation toward me.

Each time I attempted to step away and let other users handle the content dispute, Moamem would escalate things. For example, when the initial compromise was reached last month, I moved onto different articles, until about two weeks ago when Moamem expressed his intention to change the figure because someone on the talk page said something vaguely supportive of his position. So I started an RfC and was perfectly happy to let it go on with minimal involvement until the mass canvassing happened. So I brought it to the attention of ANI and Arbcom. Then I was satisfied with stepping back and letting the RfC go on without me again, until Moamem declared he'd "won" it and would implement the changes in 24 hours. So I removed the misleading material, thought better of it, and put it back (though labeling it as such). Then I was satisfied with just writing-off the whole RfC while I waited for ANI and Arbcom to move forwards, but then Moamem came here and reported me for alleged edit warring and for deleting his RfC "closure."

Believe me, I have no reason to want to clash against him absent such extenuating circumstances. It is exhausting. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 09:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't oppose an IBAN (meaning interaction ban right?) Between me and Jadebenn. I already tried to keep them at a minimum.

Regarding "what I did" to him, I am not sure what you mean exactly. But if you meant asking for "off site contributions". I explained multiple times. This conversation has been going on for more than 3 months and only 2 or 3 people showed up the whole time to give one or 2 phrases each. So it was basically just me and Jadebenn rehashing the same stuff over and over again. His RfC hasn't changed anything. It just seemed that Wikipedia editor are not interested in this debate. After doing research and getting advice from a more experienced Editor PhilipTerryGraham (who is in this conversation and can attest to this fact and who I thought for some reason was an admin) I was told that Going off site is ok as long as the request is balanced and neutral. So given the lack of progress I resorted to ask for input from prominent Reddit space communities that I knew would be interested in the discussion. I tried to be as neutral as possible and invited Jadebenn's (who I notified right away) input if I wasn't. I honestly don't know what I was supposed to do after a tiring 3 months arguing technicalities and Wikipedia legal jargon instead of the subject at hand. A number of people showed up to the conversation and gave various and insightful comments at the exception of A SINGLE Ip user who engaged in vandalism.

If you deem my actions worth a ban it's fine. I just wanted to point out that everything I done was in good faith and my goal has always been to have the most accurate and exhaustive information on Wikipedia. Thanks. - Moamem (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Interaction ban between Jadebenn and Moamem

Given the intense conflict between Jadebenn and Moamem, especially Moamem's aggressive behavior towards Jadebenn, i have no choice but i have to involve myself and propose IBAN between the two.

Poll (interaction ban)

• Support. Please, stop it! I know this is too early (premature) to propose something like this, but with the escalation of this conflict i had to do so. SMB​99​thx Email! 07:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Didn't even see this before, I'd also like to propose a partial block on all NASA-related articles for at least a month for both (but Moamem in particular.) Klohinx^talk 07:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I kinda enjoyed some of the discussion that took place between these two, but even I have to admit that after getting pinged over a dozen times by both of these editors into the discussion, it does get tiring. There is absolutely nothing more to gain from this discussion anymore; both Jadebenn and Moamem have exhausted their arguments and now it's just a cycle of repeating arguments and personal conflict. If they cannot agree to disagree, then so be it, we'll just have to separate them. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support an interaction ban but blocking Moamem is the better option. Moamem has consistently ignored the RfC process and they're still arguing that off-site canvassing is totally acceptable. Woodroar (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll consider Moamem getting blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Moamem's aggressive behavior really strikes me out as similar to the people who is blocked because they are clearly not here to build the encyclopedia. This should complement the what i would like: full and indefinite interaction ban between Jadebenn and Moamem (I say that ban should be indefinite, especially because of Moamem.) That full indef IBAN should be enough to make Moamem stop the vendetta against Jadebenn, in any means on wiki or off wiki. SMB​99​thx Email! 12:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I just seen Moamem's IBAN comment - i don't think a block on Moamem is going to be appropriate to end this dispute (and honestly when i proposed an IBAN i do not think about Moamem getting blocked. I just want them to have peace). I think IBAN is still the best way to solve this problem. SMB​99​thx Email! 22:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I had the opposite reaction. So Moamem has an excuse for believing that off-site canvassing was acceptable, that's fine. But they've been told repeatedly that it's not, yet they refuse to fix the problem and continue to insist that it was for the best. Ultimately, they're ignoring what other editors say and doing whatever is necessary to "win", both of which are antithetical to our values on Wikipedia. This is exactly the type of behavior that drives editors from the project. Woodroar (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not entirely sure. Moamem is saying in his defense that he was advised in this manner by a user that he thought was an admin. See: I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase? - Moamem (talk) 12:42 pm, 1 June 2020, Monday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC−7) @Moamem: It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you. I cannot link to a diff due to the massive revdel in the history, but it is currently up at Talk:Space Launch System. Moamem said on here After doing research and getting advice from a more experienced Editor PhilipTerryGraham (who is in this conversation and can attest to this fact and who I thought for some reason was an admin) I was told that Going off site is ok as long as the request is balanced and neutral. which lines up with this. I'm not saying it was truly okay, but I don't think it's fair to say that this is ignoring a correction. Moamem has since realized that that editor is not actually an admin, and while he hasn't said this, it's very implied that he was just defending past behavior and recognizes this correction. Leijurv (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Leijurv: As it's been redacted, I can no longer show you the info, but the message was slanted against my POV and explicitly called for users to make Wikipedia accounts to influence the debate, even though PhilipTerryGraham previously told him that behavior wasn't acceptable. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 08:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jadebenn: :

• The post is still up and wasn't a "slander" against anyone. You have never said that it was so and would have provided a quote of my "slander" if such a thing existed, I am sure. I offered multiple times to make edits if necessary.
• The unique phrase that was deemed reprehensible was "I could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!". That I said in a subsequent message during the conversation (not on the initial post). I agreed that was very poor wording and deleted this comment altogether.
• The conversation with PhilipTerryGraham happened after the post NOT BEFORE!
• I want to add that before posting the message I tried to get Wikipedia Editor's input and went personally to a dozen wikipedia editors very active in space articles. And asked them on their Talk page to join the conversation. To no avail...
• I had decided not to interact with Jadebenn anymore but since he's still making accusation I had to provide precision. I'll try to refrain from further interactions. - Moamem (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PhilipTerryGraham talked with you on June 1st, after a previous incident of off-site canvassing. Then you did it a few days ago in July. You very much had seen his comment, as you replied to him on the talk page on June 2nd. You cannot claim you were mislead, as you didn't follow his advice (even if you believed off-site canvassing was acceptable, you ignored what he told you wasn't), and you cannot claim ignorance. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the conversation (I can't link to the diff since it was revdel, but anyone can check with the time stamp) : I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase? - Moamem (talk) 12:42 pm, 1 June 2020, Monday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC−7) @Moamem: It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you.. PhilipTerryGraham is specifically saying that off site input is ok and even giving me advice on how to proceed. I don't know what you're claiming I had knowledge of or what you think I'm claiming I didn't have knowlege of? - Moamem (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leijurv, I understand that Moamem was given incorrect or incomplete advice. Althought I maintain that they would have known this if they'd read the policies/guidelines linked to them, and they should have written neutral messages in any case. But that can't be undone, at least until someone invents time travel. The issue is that Moamem refuses to make any good faith efforts to repair the damage right now, and they're doubling down by insisting that the canvassing inspired some insightful comments and only a little vandalism. An editor who doesn't read, won't fix their mistakes, and generally refuses to adhere to community norms is a net negative to the project. If Moamem wants to keep editing at Wikipedia, they'll need to recognize this and change. Woodroar (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See his reply above. He confirms he has not taken down his requests. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blocking Moamem. I thought we had reached a reasonable compromise, and then Moamem decided to re-litigate the entire issue again after getting a single semi-supportive comment from a third party. Moamem doesn't add new information to their arguments, but just repeats the same points over and over. Jadebenn was at least willing to compromise. At this point I regret getting involved. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eggsaladsandwich: If nothing else, I appreciated the break from the drama during the little less than a month where it looked like your compromise was going to hold. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Moamem's report downpage leads me to believe these two are not going to get on at any time in the near future. It seems to be the best thing for all the other editors who co-exist happily on the pages where Moamem and Jadebenn intersect is to stop these arguments from polluting those spaces. I would not be opposed to sanctions againts Moamem for the particularly egregious attempt to use off-site means to influence on-site discussion. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 13:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: Indef block for Moamem, short or partial block for Jadebenn

Indefinite* block Moamem for being not here to build an encyclopedia, and short or partial block for Jadebenn.* (*I'm open for a longer block for Jadebenn, and months/partial block for Moamem.)

Poll (block)

• Oppose. This is way too far for me even as a proposer. SMB​99​thx Email! 23:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this one is a bit silly. Leijurv (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This. I have decided to put this proposal in because there are chorus of users suggesting that Moamem should be blocked (and Moamem's suggestions that Jadebenn is in the wrong side - i decided to give a weight on it - also i got an idea of a partial block from Klohinx). I don't like it at all, this is the wrong way to end the conflict between the two. SMB​99​thx Email! 23:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I already !voted for blocking Moamem in the section above, before this one was created. I won't move my comments here because I think they make more sense in context above. Woodroar (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my comments on the Space Launch System Talk page by Jadebenn

Reason for report

Editing others' comments

Page

Space Launch System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jadebenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of the user's reverts

• [01:59, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=967572895&oldid=967572433&title=Talk:Space_Launch_System
• [02:36, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&diff=967576881&oldid=967576459

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [03:11, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&diff=967580777&oldid=967580645
• [03:25, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&diff=967582492&oldid=967581907

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page

[02:29, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jadebenn&diff=967576934&oldid=967576165

Requested remedy

Topic ban on article

Comments:

After months of debating SLS launch cost, a clear consensus has emerged. After trying every possible way to stop the process Jadebenn the only holdout (with another contributor being a partial holdout) deleted multiple times my comment section asking for a final tally before impacting the CLEAR consensus. This was done despite me telling him that is was a clear violation of Editing others' comments and if he had any issues to discuss it with me and that I'm open to doing the relevant modification myself. This is an outrageous violation and ask you to ban Jadebenn from editing Space Launch System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Thank you - Moamem (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's relevant to note that this user is the focus of another ANI report, and has, in my view, engaged in repeatedly uncivil behaviors. Nevertheless, I probably shouldn't have removed that material. I did restore it shortly thereafter, though within a collapsible. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your frivolous complaint has nothing to do with this issue. You admitted yourself to the rule braking saying and I quote "I probably shouldn't have removed that material.". As for the 3RR violation it's evident to anyone that can count to 4 and you admitted to it on your own talk page when another user brought it up saying and I quote : "Would rather not get slapped down for incivility or an (unintentional) 3RR vio. Hopefully I didn't just shoot myself in the foot." see here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967558763&oldid=967529648 - Moamem (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that Jadebenn has simultaneously to this violation committed a 3RR Violation reverting edits by another user (not me) on the same SLS page 4 times in less than 2 hours! this has been reported to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring see here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jadebenn_reported_by_User:Moamem

Due to the multiple and simultaneous violations I ask you that the editor Jadebenn be banned from the platform or at least banned from editing the Space Launch System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and its Talk page. Thank you- Moamem (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you start a new section for this? You and Jadebenn are already having a spat in an already open investigation (against you, I might add.) Not sure if there's a policy against counter-reporting during an open report, but WP:PASSIVE probably fits. Klohinx^talk 06:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Klohinx: The two incidents are unrelated. Was I not suppose to report him if hi commits an infraction while an investigation involving us is underway? Seems odd. - Moamem (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This goes deeper than I thought. From what I can see, you (allegedly) posted on various forums to try and get support for an RfC discussion in (alleged) violation of WP:MEAT because someone who you thought was an admin (but wasn't, and even said he wasn't) said it was okay, treated it as if it were an end-all poll] WP:PNSD and said you would make the changes to the article yourself because you crowned yourself the winner. You blast Jadebenn for making more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, when you've basically done it yourself [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]. I'm sorry, but from the looks of it all, if anyone's gonna get the ban, it's probably going to be you first. Klohinx^talk 07:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Klohinx: I cant respond to all your points, but as of 3RR violation I certainly did not commit any :

• [93] : This is Jadebenn's edits I'm not even in this edits
• [94] : This is me just commenting on the talk page lake I did a dozen times yesterday
• [95] : Again me commenting on the talk page no reverts!

I don't know why you say I did a 3RR violation? - Moamem (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]