At today's ANI, new user Kingces95 committed these great sins:

Linking to Wikisource's page for the Nunes memo

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nunes_memo&diff=next&oldid=841335058&diffmode=source

Adding "allegedly" to Wikipedia's claim that Nunes lied

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nunes_memo&diff=prev&oldid=841263874&diffmode=source

Including the full text of a Nunes claim that Wikipedia said was a lie

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nunes_memo&diff=prev&oldid=840970321&diffmode=source

Bullrangifer, Aquillion, Diannaa, Volunteer Marek, Objective3000, Casprings, William M. Connolley, MrX, Johnuniq, and NeilN edit warred with Kingces95 to remove his edits, who restored them and kept editing the page. This created the justification for Casprings to bring Kingces to ANI for edit warring and POV. The same team plus NorthBySouthBaranof, Power~enwiki, JzG, SarekOfVulcan, and Jytdog called for him to be topic banned and he was indeffed after refusing to submit to a rigged process.

Craig Murray may have caught a paid editing crew operating under the name Philip Cross.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/

> Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel.

> What is particularly interesting is that “Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross.

Wikiproject Christianity's newsletter for April 2018 said that "The death of Billy Graham on February 21 was a profound loss." Future Perfect at Sunrise edit warred with Lepricavark to remove this language and then protected the newsletter as his preferred version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Outreach/April_2018&action=history

jps reported this to ANI as unacceptable behavior by… Lionelt, the original author of the newsletter and not one of the edit war participants. Bbb23, JzG, and Only In Death supported Future Perfect and jps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Taking_a_position_on_whether_Billy_Graham's_death_was_a_%22profound_loss%22

Swarm blocked Tarage for a day for using the word "vandalism" to describe Future Perfect's actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarage#April_2018

Arbcom near-unanimously declined to hear a case about what should have been a quick desysopping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=837088275&oldid=836930483

Sir Joseph took Specifico to AE for denouncing the "unwashed Hasidic Jews" who read the Algemeiner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AE#SPECIFICO_2

Specifico, MrX, and Objective3000 defended this as merely putting words in Donald Trump's mouth, a violation of both BLP and NPOV. My Very Best Wishes claimed it was not antisemitic. Tryptofish called for leniency for Sir Joseph for daring to report this. NeilN called the report "a waste of time as any reader not actively looking to take offense"

and threatened Sir Joseph with a warning. RegentsPark also said there was nothing wrong with this statement and called for giving Sir Joseph a warning.

Compare this to what happened to Franzboas. >>330693

Cullen328, Ritchie333, Davey2010, and Boing! said Zebedee ganged up with Hijiri88 to indefinitely ban Dream Focus by allowing Hijiri to stalk Dream Focus and start fights with him wherever he edited, refusing to impose an interaction ban between them, blocking Dream Focus for complaining about being stalked, unblocking DF with the unreasonable condition that he stop complaining, and then indeffing him and revoking his talk page access for complaining about the one-sidedness of that condition and the ongoing stalking by Hijiri88.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dream_Focus#Regarding_my_case_at_the_Administrators_Noticeboard_Incidents

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=701

An update to the story of Captain Occam >>329517

After Captain Occam was unbanned, Beyond My Ken went to at least three different articles where Captain Occam was topic-banned and left this warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adnan_Oktar&diff=prev&oldid=760025770

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)&diff=prev&oldid=760025977

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lynn&diff=prev&oldid=760026906

> Fair warning

> Editors of this article are given fair warning that Captain Occam, a creationist who was site-banned by ArbCom due to his editing in the "race & intelligence" topic area has been inexplicably released from his site ban by the Committee after an appeal, and has expressed in this thread his desire to "correct" the problems his perceives in this article. Captain Occam is a POV warrior whoae editing must be closely monitored for bias.

Captain Occam, who denies being a creationist, sent BMK a private email to ask him to stop doing this. BMK ordered Occam to stop sending him emails. Occam sent another email laughing him off. BMK reported Occam to AE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=834224739#Captain_Occam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Captain_Occam#Notice

Occam was indeffed for using email to canvas other editors in another situation. Nothing was done about BMK's behavior.

Wikipedia locked its article on New York Times editor Sarah Jeong to prevent any mention of the controversy of her racist tweets. The group edit-warring to keep the controversy out included Innisfree987, Anarchyte, Citing, Openlydialectic, Drmies, and Abecedare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Jeong&offset=&limit=500&action=history

>>332180

>>332177

Wikipedia's administrators have begun to clear their political opposition out of the Sarah Jeong dispute through their usual pattern of finding any misdemeanor behavior that can be used to justify claiming that the other side is "disruptive" or "not here" for an indefinite block while allowing their side to get away with anything.

Nergaal, a veteran user with over 50,000 edits since 2007, was was blocked by Oswah with an appeal declined by NeilN for trying to start an AfD to delete the Sarah Jeong page under the BLP1E rule. He was then topic-banned by Abecedare for describing the activity of Drmies as "repeated abusive, hasty push of personal agenda by editor who clearly is breaking WP:BADNAC", was blocked by Paul Erik for reopening the AfD after Drmies closed it, and then indeffed by Ian Thomson as "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" for asking why he was blocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nergaal#August_2018_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jeong

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Jeong&diff=853800587&oldid=853794247

ZinedineZidane98 argued with Gamaliel and XOR'easter on the AfD, opened an AfD for the page on Jeong's book The Internet of Garbage that XOR'easter and Softlavender had created in retaliation for the argument, and removed comments by Openlydialectic that included personal attacks against him. Bishonen blocked ZinedineZidane98 for a month. ZinedineZidane98 restored the comments and appealed the block because it was out of policy and he had undone what he had been blocked for, so Courcelles indeffed him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZinedineZidane98#August_2018,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage&type=revision&diff=853723238&oldid=853722806&diffmode=source

ESparky, a self-declared paid editor for singer Emily Perry who claims that his job had nothing to do with Sarah Jeong, was interrogated by Jytdog and then indeffed by Kudpung for removing his "paid" template after he ended his contract.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESparky#WP:PAID_violation

Wookian was topic-banned by Abecedare for the "BLP violation" of bringing a Wall Street Journal editorial to the Sarah Jeong talk page and saying "simply quoting the tweets makes her critics case for them" and for quoting one of the tweets on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wookian#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abecedare#Hi,_did_you_block_me_due_to_a_misunderstanding?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jeong&type=revision&diff=854073731&oldid=854072997

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jeong&diff=854078933&oldid=854078622

Abecedare gave a 24-hour block to Openlydialectic who had been defending Sarah Jeong. Abecedare repealed the block due to "feedback" from an undisclosed backchannel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Openlydialectic#August_2018_3

>>332185

Meanwhile on the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong

> Neither CNN nor BBC criticized her. Only the conservative/Russian (is there any difference at this point?) did. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

>It's okay to criticize groups of people who have been structurally oppressive, including white people, men, and police. It is not a personal attack to say so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

> Allow me to explain the difference between personal attacks and speech criticizing systemic oppression. "Fuck Wookian" is a personal attack, while "Fuck the Police" is a great song. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

> Oppose per GorillaWarfare. WP:UNDUE is policy and it doesn't matter how many sockpuppets show up, that policy isn't changing. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

> My opinion is that making claims of clear racial animus is a BLP violation.You have made it abundantly clear to me that these tweets belong nowhere near Wikipedia, including the talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

> You characterize acceptance of her tweets as "an ethereal, highly POV universe", I characterize it as a reality where people are allowed to speak out against structurally oppressive groups of people even when they do so in exaggerated ways. But in the end it doesn't matter what we think, that's what reliable sources are for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

> The tweets should be omitted because they would mislead readers by presenting a false picture of the subject—a false picture that could only be corrected with copious explanations that would make the topic WP:UNDUE for this short article. Try again in three months if something other than indignation has actually happened. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

> If you don't see why "these messy fruits of intersectional social justice" is soapboxing, then you may not be competent to edit such a contentious topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

> oppose this is where the initial storm of protest arose as reported by subsequent high quality sources. This is what the content says - "sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media". Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

> Again it is remarkable that no one calling for the tweets to be quoted has offered to a) post quotes of the kind of tweets to which she was responding, and b) something about their number and the context of harrassment online and how women respond to it. The content proposal fails to do, and implementing it would be a violation of NPOV and doing that on a BLP would be a BLP violation. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

> Several, including The Guardian, Vox, and CJR, explicitly paint the controversy as a bad-faith trolling campaign, which should also be mentioned somehow. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

> Oppose: "widespread coverage" elides the issue, which was a backlash in right-wing or right-leaning media to the tweets, which many commentators (as cited in secondary-source coverage) argued were deceptively taken out of context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) (edited 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

> Both of those sources specify conservative media: BBC says "conservative critics"; CNN says "right-wing … right-wingers, people that identify with the white supremacist ideology". Also, please do not bold a "support" or "oppose" unless it is your own !vote (I have unbolded above). Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

> NOTE: The Daily Caller has alerted its readers about the article and is encouraging people to fight for inclusion of her tweets, etc., in the wiki article: [27]. So this article definitely needs more eyes/admins/protection, and weeding out (or blocking) of SPAs, newbies, and POV warriors. Softlavender (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is getting shit on by Twitter followers for dissing Jeremy Corbyn and Hamas.

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/1027606662386016258 https://archive.is/lnkBe

Context: Corbyn was recently exposed as a long-time terrorist supporter. A tabloid had to run the story because the mainstream papers don't think that this kind of thing is news.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6995489/jeremy-corbyns-anti-semite-crisis-dossier/

Background on what Corbyn supports:

http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm https://archive.is/xyi3

What makes this extra interesting is that Wales's own expressed point of view would not be welcome on Wikipedia and certainly not around his new friends at the Guardian. There may be consequences for him.

Corbyn is being protected by Black Kite…

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Joseph#Corbyn

and Andy Dingley, who says that the allegation that Corbyn laid a wreath for the terrorists who attacked the Olympic games in Munich is "not notable" and "undue"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#allegation_about_tunisia

A couple of weeks ago, Wikia / Fandom administrators banned the use of the term "SJW" sitewide.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/07/30/fan-trusted-fandom-briefly-bans-term-sjw-from-its-wiki-sites/

Hours ago: Crappy Games Wiki and Awful Movies Wiki are to be closed by Fandom VTSF for "Pushing GamerGate Thought".

https://np.red*dit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/97aj87/censorship_fandominaction_crappy_games_wiki_and/

Same day: Fandom, also known as Wikia, has fired nearly all of their editorial and video staffers

https://np.red*dit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/97boq1/news_fandom_also_known_as_wikia_has_fired_nearly/

so… something happened.

And about that Munich allegation >>332195, it could be bullshit. A blogger found a book that says most of the terrorists were buried in Libya, so of course it's not a reliable source.

https://evolvepolitics.com/there-were-8-munich-terrorists-none-are-buried-at-the-tunis-cemetery-that-jeremy-corbyn-visited/

GorillaWarfare accused Kudpung of misogyny for pressuring Katherine Maher to explain why Wikipedia hired a reputation management (paid editing) company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-08-30/News_and_notes

Fram called that a personal attack and demanded that GorillaWarfare remove it. GorillaWarfare refused and restored the personal attack when Fram removed it, so Fram blocked her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks,_a_block_and_an_unblock:_review_requested

Cullen328, Calton, Courcelles start the gaslighting by accusing Fram of "escalating", demanding self-reflection by Fram, and claiming it was the worst block in recent memory. Softlavender, Thryduulf, and JzG echo them. Ivanvector claimed that there was no personal attack, and Mjolnirpants claims that Kudpung's writing "sure as hell looks like misogyny.

SlimVirgin gets the vapors:

> if we've reached the point where women can't offer the view that something on this site is sexist, we're in worse shape than I thought. SarahSV (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, Alex Shih, and Only in Death were honest enough to agree that accusing Kudpung of misogyny was a personal attack. Nick, 28bytes, and Sadads called for Fram to lose his admin powers. Lourdes recognized that GorillaWarfare's attack was part of a long-term harassment campaign against Kudpung and called for her to be indeffed if she continued.

Some unnamed lunatic at the Wikimania conference in Cape Town demanded that a user named Romaine be banned from Wikimedia events because he once was in the same room as that person to return something to a third party. Romaine makes it sound like an obviously fabricated cause, but that's the defendant's case.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2018-July/008566.html

Apparently, James Alexander of the Trust and Safety Council told him not to come back and then gaslit the entire wikimania-l by claiming that it was not a punishment.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2018-July/008587.html

Philip Kopetzky demands that all white males be banned from the discussion.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2018-July/008645.html

Amir Ladsgroup demands that moderators ban Dhaval S. Vyas for pointing out that people in the UK think men holding hands is a gay thing whereas it is normal in India.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2018-July/008600.html

Michael Hardy asked AN to blank potentially libelous comments by a user on a two-year-old AfD.

> This AfD discussion contains libelous assertions by User:M. A. Bruhn. That user says that certain professors, at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere, are

> "co-opt[ing] mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy."

Responses from the users:

> Is this the same guy that not too long ago should have had the mop removed for incompetence, and is not that same incompetence now being displayed? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

> My sentiments exactly. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

> An admin in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory is now floating conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence, for those who disagree with them. This is most troubling. MarnetteD|Talk 14:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive301#Suppression_or_courtesy_blanking_of_an_AfD_page_containing_libelous_material

Bishonen then gave Michael Hardy a 48-hour block for saying this:

> It is not true that I insulted or personally attacked six other users. I accused them. I called them bullies. They had personally attacked me rather than merely saying they disagree. I defy anyone to deny that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=857276143

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_Hardy#August_2018

Afootpluto called for Michael Hardy to be site-banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AN#Site_Ban_Proposal:_Michael_Hardy

Michael Hardy responded to that by calling for Jimbo to shut the site down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#It's_time_to_euthanize_Wikipedia.

Godotskimp took Mjolnirpants to AE with these accusations:

> 14 March 2018 Mpants argues that the journal Intelligence is not a reliable source because he considers it racist. Looking up information about this journal suggests that his comment is a gross perversion of reliable source policy, as the journal appears to be a reputable psychology journal published by Elsevier. See also the last paragraph of Jbhunley's comment here: [21]

> 14 May 2018 The background of this diff is that user:Deleet posted a comment describing the current state of research about race and intelligence, including citations to two textbooks published by Cambridge University Press: Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence and Richard Haier's The Neuroscience of Intelligence. Mpants' response is a mixture of personal attacks, such as "I'm sick of dealing with racist bullshit like the comment above yours" (that is, Deleet's comment) and attacks on the credibility of the sources being cited, such as "Look at how cheap those 'textbooks' are (ever seen a college textbook under $180?)"

> Essay created on 1 September 2018, a fairly clear violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In an earlier version of the essay, the opinion that races differ in average intelligence was described as a "core belief uniting the various types of nazis". [22]

> 5 September 2018 Mpants says that Deleet's being harassed by sockpuppets is good for the project. I understand this topic area has had problems with sockpuppetry in the past, so encouraging more of it is disruptive.

Result: "not actionable" according to Sandstein, Ymblanter, and regentspark who calls the evidence a "random collection of edits." Filer indeffed by Courcelles at the urging of Simonm223, Beyond My Ken, and an IP that was blocked for sockpuppeting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AE#MPants_at_work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Godotskimp

Simonm223 opened a baseless SPI against the Godotskimp who was found innocent and indeffed anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Deleet/Archive

Fully disclosed paid editor Dolcevikasf worked with Jytdog for a year to comply with Wikipedia's standards while creating pages for companies he works for, Verastem Oncology and Twist Bioscience. Dolcevikasf submitted a draft of the Verastem article through Articles for Creation and followed Jytdog's advice to include negative news about Verastem.

After nobody else said anything for a month, Dolcevikasf moved the article into mainspace and was immediately reported to ANI by Jytdog for "circumventing AfC" and banned by Alex Shih. Robert McClenon reported the draft to Articles for Deletion where two people say it doesn't look that promotional. The process was working and they banned the user because Jytdog threw a fit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dolcevikasf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Verastem_Oncology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Verastem_Oncology

>>332252

>>332241

It happened again. Fireice, a ten-year user, fully and properly disclosed his conflict of interest in the area of cryptocurrencies when bringing Jytdog to ANI for combative behavior and requesting a two-way interaction ban. Jytdog, K.e.coffman, Govindaharihari, Beyond My Ken, Roxy the Dog, JzG, and MER-C used that disclosure alone as an excuse to topic-ban him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Asking_for_2-way_no-fault_IBAN_with_User:Jytdog

MER-C also topic-banned OSNF2P for proper disclosure of his conflict of interest on the Monero talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OSNF2P

Wikipedia has formally banned Breitbart and offered up Occupy Democrats to pretend that they are being fair, as if they were an equal alternative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#RfC:_Breitbart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Occupy_Democrats

Sagecandor was blocked by Bbb23 as a sock of Cirt after a report by Pudeo who has enough political currency to survive doing this. Other users who have raised the same allegations has been blocked for raising them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cirt

Wikipedia got rid of another dissident editor. Winkelvi removed "fan crust" and "peacock terminology" from the article on Meghan Trainor…

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meghan_Trainor&diff=866635941&oldid=866615330

… which had just been edited a few hours earlier by MaranoFan, who had an interaction ban with Winkelvi.

MaranoFan complained to Ritchie333 who indeffed Winkelvi. Winkelvi apologized, claimed not to have checked the edit history, and offered to be topic banned from the page. "If I ever decide to die on a hill in Wikipedia it sure as hell isn't going to be over Meghan Trainor."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Winkelvi#Blocked

Following this defense, Ritchie333 brought this to the administrator which acted as they usually do, as sharks out for blood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AN#Winkelvi

Only in death, Nihlus, Mandruss, zchrykng, SS112 endorsed the block as they did not believe that Winkelvi was telling the truth. Floquenbeam went further and demanded a site ban, backed by TonyBalloni, Cullen328, Serial_Number_54129, dlthewave, Swarm, MrX, Softlavendar, Davey2010, and Galobtter. Laser Brain, Tarage, and Iridescent were willing to accept that Winkelvi was innocent but said he should be indeffed anyways. LegacyPac and Snooganssnoogans accused Winkelvi of past "stalking and harassment" of which I don't know the history, but would be relevant to establishing a pattern of behavior. Boing! said Zebedee, who is often at the forefront of these witch hunts, was one of several people who questioned the rush to punish Winkelvi so severely. MONGO opposed the block on the irrelevant grounds that "MaranoFan has long history of disruption, indef block, socking" which there is no sign of MaranoFan doing in this case.

The first words of the "fan cruft" that Winkelvi had removed were originally added by Lawrencekhoo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meghan_Trainor&diff=789862557&oldid=788571592

Atsme noticed that Maranofan had commented in the thread and said that was a violation of their interaction ban with Winkelvi, so 28bytes blocked Maranofan for a month.

Bbb23 indeffed Obsidi because Softlavender and Simonm223 called him names after he reported MjolnirPants to ANI for an edit dispute involving potentially BLP violating language on the Milo Yiannopoulos article. In an appeal, Obsidi offered to abide by a topic ban from politics, but Guy Macon points out that Softlavender and Simonm223 are still calling him names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obsidi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#User:MjolnirPants

Hzh brought JzG to ANI for calling something fraudulent in wikitext without a source, which is hoaxing, and then launching into personal attacks against Hzh when asked to provide a source for the claim. The text in dispute regards the warezing site Sci-Hub.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sci-Hub&diff=866704214&oldid=866699418

Jytdog's preferred version:

> … the interest of institutional libraries to comply with contracts they sign with publishers through which people with legitimate credentials access the publications, the dangers created by leaked credentials and their fraudulent use.

Hzh's preferred version:

> … the interest of institutional libraries to comply with contracts they sign with publishers through which people with legitimate credentials access the publications, the issues created by leaked credentials and their unauthorized use.

In response to Hzh bringing a complaint to ANI about JzG's personal attacks, Hijiri88, Alexbrn, Calton, Softlavender, and Slatersteven call for a boomerang with Calton accusing Hzh of "Sealioning" for requesting evidence of any bad behavior on his part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=869119772#User:JzG

Hzh is a very prolific editor with over 10,000 contributions to different articles this year, but they are trying to hang him as NOTHERE because he uses the talk page to gain consensus before changing the page, which is what editors are supposed to do. There is a real chance that Hzh will face punishment because of this "consensus" of clearly involved editors who always take the same side as one another.

Kendall-K1 reported Beyond My Ken to ANI for edit-warring over the inclusion of the word "affleunt" on the page for the Riverdale neighborhood of the Bronx page after a previous RFC found "a rough consensus against" the use of this word to describe cities, edit-warring with power~enwiki to keep the new RFC listed in WP:CENT, and banning SMcCandlish from his talk page and insulting him in an edit summary for posting a discretionary sanctions template on his page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=869735754

The result:

> This is stupid as hell, once again. Requesting a close. –Tarage (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The report was closed by Legacypac after a little more than four hours.

Boing! said Zebedee reported "the aggressive and confrontational approach of Tarage at the AN/ANI boards" to AN and gained support for a 3 month topic ban from the drama boards. Tarage considered that intolerable and flounced off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=871430648#Tarage

New user Chimchongchiggedydo was indeffed for attempting to remove poorly written text on the page Actress that said that "Actress is a term used interchangeably with "actor". MarnetteD edit warred to protect the text, both of them took a my-way-or-the-highway approach on the talk page, and Ad Orientum banned him after Softlavender reported him to ANI as "spectacularly NOTHERE" and "obviously a returning troll or block evader".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=871184016#Editor_has_done_nothing_but_edit_war_against_consensus_on_gender_issues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chimchongchiggedydo

It was all over this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Actress_(disambiguation)&diff=869224868&oldid=860200340

Binksternet says "this edit was trolling"

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

In a discussion of whether White Privilege is controversial, Simonm223 calls Ben Shapiro a white supremacist and MjolnirPants calls Jesse Lee Peterson a white guy in blackface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_74#White_Privilege

Wikipedia now calls Gavin McInnes a white supremacist based on the "consensus" of Simonm223, JzG, Calton, Beyond My Ken, PeterTheFourth, NorthBySouthBaranof, and finally Jytdog citing Vox and Media Matters as RS. Wumbolo called for them to be blocked for violating BLP on the BLP noticeboard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=870701040#Gavin_McInnes

Boing! said Zebedee, Winged Blades of Godric, and Softlavender needled Arbcom candidate Fred Bauder with questions about past personal scandals. Fred moved their statements off of his questions page and onto the talk page. Boing and Winged Blades edit warred with him over these movements until Boing blocked him. Fred unblocked himself, was reblocked by Iridescent, unblocked himself again, and was emergency desysopped by Maxim. This is now at Arbcom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred_Bauder/Evidence

Jytdog looked up another user's phone number and called them over an edit dispute. Not cool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jytdog

>>330041

> TheValeyard appeared on February 4, lectured another user on Wikipedia notability guidelines in his second edit, and was greeted by The Quixotic Potato an hour and a half later.

TheValeyard is a confirmed sock of ValarianB. Bbb23 was nice enough to be lenient to a political ally. Emphasis added:

> Confirmed. Sock blocked and tagged. Master blocked for one week. Closing.–Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ValarianB/Archive

While only blocked for one week, ValarianB quit editing… at least under that name.

Also, The Quixotic Potato has been indeffed for threatening to out another editor for leverage in a content dispute.

> Continued claim of knowing another editor's real life identity ([4]) when the information is not disclosed anywhere across Wikimedia projects.

> Pattern of similar offensive behavior in the previous year ([5]) without seemingly understanding the gravity of this concern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Quixotic_Potato#Block_extended_to_indefinite

The threat:

> On your linkedin profile picture you look younger than I am (I am 30+).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=820338328

Here is a Wikipedia power player's opinion on a major newspaper that happens to be owned by someone other than the Democrats:

> just FYI, the Washington Times might look like a reliable source at quick glance, but it isn't. –Floquen'beam (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=872869752&oldid=872869517

It is owned by the Moonies, but it can be compared to the the Christian Science Monitor which is owned by the homeopath movement. Both are known for straight news reporting and in neither case has the ownership greatly affected it.

Wikipedia has a default size for profile images in biographies. Beyond My Ken insists that Wikipedia should go out of its way to set a smaller image size for the biographies of Nazis from WWII, accused everyone else in the discussion of "glorifying Nazis" for disagreeing with him, and edit-warred over the image sizes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eduard_Dietl#Image_size

> Oh, and, no, I'm not stopping. Images in infoboxes need to be large enough to easily identify the subject, and no larger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=873778018&oldid=873777970

Other users were changing images sizes at the time. Buster Reynolds increased the image sizes of Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler while making numerous changes to infoboxes in different biographies. Meeepmep and Hohum were also working in the area.

FlightTime reported BMK to ANI for his behavior. Future Perfect at Sunrise immediately called for a boomerang, echoed supported by Swarm. JzG accused Tornado Chaser of supporting the glorification of Nazis by FlightTime, Buster Reynolds, Meeepmep, Hohum, and other participants on the talk page, which JzG accepted had happened. Johnuniq called for them to be banned and compared their activity to that of a user who had been spamming Jimbo's talk page with arguments about slavery. BMK then started talking about image sizes to make the discussion about image sizes rather than his behavior, and Swarm closed the thread as the "wrong venue" for FlightTime's report because BMK had been disruptively editing about the content dispute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=873992653&oldid=873992570#We_have_a_problem

Tsumikiria and PeterTheFourth were caught lying and misrepresenting sources to make the page for Gab.ai look as bad as possible, so PeterTheFourth took debate opponent Ridiceo to ANI for the high crime of debating him. Ridiceo was site-banned with the support of Volunteer Marek, K.e.coffman, Jorm, Aquillion, wumbolo, Beyond My Ken, Softlavender, Binksternet, oknazevad, and Swarm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#User:Ridiceo

A followup to >>332401

50.107.81.26 reported Tsumikiria for "pushing obvious NPOV violations on Gab article, as well as Antifa article." Doug Weller chastised the IP for calling Tsumikiria a terrorist for being a self-declared member of the terrorist group Antifa. Acroterion and Dlohcierekim threatened the IP with a block for the same. Simonm223 pledged to canvas himself into the Gab article and treat it as a political battleground.

NinjaRobotPirate declared the IP to be a sockpuppet based on secret evidence and blocked him for three days. Bishonen closed the thread with a bit of gravedancing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=877462377&oldid=877452665#User:Tsumikiria_SPA_pushing_obvious_NPOV_violations_on_Gab_article,_as_well_as_Antifa_article.

Yamla and 331dot denied the IP's appeals despite the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing by the IP, and 331dot revoked his talk page access for presnting an argument that he could not refute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:50.107.81.26

In today's Wikidrama, a group of foreigners invade an African place and use their power to impose American norms. This used to be called Imperialism…

The Amharic (Ethiopian) language Wikipedia blocked an offensive username.

> "Names calling attention to your sexual behavior have never been allowed here in 15 years and aren't suddenly allowed in 2018"

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-January/091568.html

Fae complains to wikimedia-l because the blocked username was QueerEcofeminist.

> An account block on the Amharic Wikipedia (am.wp) was flagged up yesterday on the WM LGBT+ Telegram discussion group

Reminder, every Wikipedian consistently denies that there is any such offsite communications group.

> After off-wiki discussion, the WMF Trust and Safety team has been approached for advice

How is this in any way a "Trust and Safety" issue unless "Trust and Safety" means something else?

Further discusson confirms that the block was for promoting homosexuality.

https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D_%E1%8B%8D%E1%8B%AD%E1%8B%AD%E1%89%B5:Codex_Sinaiticus#QueerEcofeminist_block

Codex Sinaiticus / Til Eulenspiegel, an admin with two accounts, blocked Teles as WP:NOTHERE for joining his wiki to do nothing but complain about the block, so MarcoAurelio revoked the the bureaucrat status that he had held for twelve years and opened a discussion for a global ban.

https://am.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E1%88%8D%E1%8B%A9:Log/block&page=%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D%3ATeles

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_Til_Eulenspiegel

At present, the call for a global ban is supported by acagastya, Amory, AntiCompositeNumber, Atcovi, Az1568, Beeblebrox, Bellezzasolo, Bishonen, Boing! said Zebedee, Bradv, Cameron11598, Cohaf, Cullen328, Davey2010, Dax Bane, Doug Weller, Drmies, Guettarda, Hamster Sandwich, Hian, Jeske Couriano, JzG, LakesideMiners, Miniapolis, Mrschimpf, Mz7, NinjaRobotPirate, Krenair, Oshwah, Praxidicae, PlyrStar93, Rschen7754, Saederup92, Sandstein, StraussInTheHouse, stjn, stwalkerster, TheMesquito, TheSandDoctor, TonyBalloni, TropicalKitty, Vermont, and Winged Blades of Godric.

Related to >>332222 there was more than one person banned from the Cape Town event.

> THE over-eager and misguided official who banned me from Wikimania Cape Town for allegedly ‘disrupting a pre-event on ‘Decolonising the Internet’ and also for ‘disrupting an event in Tunisia’, (both events which I never attended) is no longer at Wikimedia.

https://medialternatives.com/2019/01/15/wikimedia-james-alexander-youre-out/

James Alexander was let go for no stated reason. Like all SanFranBans, they made him an unperson and aren't saying why.

Iamveselin blocked 72hrs by Bbb23 with threatened indef after a report by JDC808…

> So lets get this straight, an editor has been blocked for not responding to (from looking at their talkpage) false accusations of vandalism when they were adding unobjectionable (in the, its not uncited and its not a BLP violation sense) material to an article, and someone threatening to report them (as they have done) for not using the right type of dash? What the fuck is this "Bully people off wikipedia" month? The correct way to respond to people making unreasonable demands is to ignore them. An editor is not required to kowtow to the em-dash mafia. Jesus Christ. Next time someone has a go about dashes, I think the only response needed will be 'fuck off'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=879597935&oldid=879583305#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Iamveselin

Alex Shih accused of abusing checkuser tools

https://thewikicabal.com/2019/02/07/the-character-assassination-of-alex-shih/

The Kingfisher questions whether Hope Not Hate is a reliable source, but his comments are struck out by Nableezy as a confirmed sock. Let's see what really happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:For_Britain#Is_Hope_Not_Hate_considered_a_reliable_source?

The Kingfisher took Nableezy to AE for battleground editing, particularly "accusing every new editor who opposes him of being a NoCal sock."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=881417436&oldid=881416940#Nableezy

Nableezy reported The Kingfisher to SPI as a sock of NoCal100. Bbb23 found the technical evidence "less than likely" but banned TheKingfisher anyways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive#01_February_2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Kingfisher#February_2019

Bbb23 then sat on the appeals queue to prevent any other admin from reading The Kingfisher's appeals.

> Please do not send me any more e-mail. Thanks.–Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

On Talk:Homosexuality, Inowen raised the issue of whether child abuse is a contributing factor to homosexuality in adulthood.

> On the matter of scientific studies of causal factors such as sexual abuse in youth?

> "Adolescent boys, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than peers who had not been abused." -William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D., Journal of the American Medical Association 1998.ref

> Also should be noted are non-sexual forms of abuse such as violence in the home as contributing to homosexuality, not just sexual abuse.-Inowen (nlfte) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That "ref" was not a reference to the AMA article but to Conservapedia. This is a problem because it shows that Inowen did not read the actual AMA article to confirm the quote, but Wikipedia only cares because Inowen reads Conservapedia. EvergreenFir swiftly reported Inowen to ANI for holding "strong and rather extreme beliefs".

Iridescent called out Inowen for proposing "a particular ultra-crank theory" that the British monarchy opposed Brexit and attempted to influence American opinion on the matter, like all governments do. EEng ridiculed "his crackpot comments" and accused him of hating the Jews. Nil Einne added "they're still pushing their fantasy world about how the queen has hacked the UN and is trying to destroy America and wikipedia via defamation law or something."

The editors found in several instances that Inowen had a history of soapboxing without citing sources and of creating Wikipedia pages for his political opinions, which was enough to justify an indefinite ban by community consensus. The behavior of the Wikipedia regulars, in casting aspersions and soapboxing and showing bias on their part, was not questioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality&diff=882411778&oldid=882411694#Studies_of_abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=882742774&oldid=882742666#POV,_WP:TEND,_and_other_issues_with_Inodwen

Radio host Mark Dice wanted to make his Wikipedia page more promotional and somehow got Jimmy Wales to support him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Dice

TonyBallioni jumped into the page to denounce Dice as "a conspiracy theorist with a Twitter following," drawing this response from Wales:

> I think you should permanently refrain from editing this entry and leave it to those who are more neutral.–Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

TonyBalloni's friends jump in to support his personal attacks against Dice, who was another Wikipedia editor in the thread at the time.

> I think TonyBallioni brings objectivity and wisdom to this discussion, and I would encourage him to continue editing, rather than to abstain. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

> Me too. I think Jimbo Wales should permanently refrain from attempting to throw shade at our best admins. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

> Me three. Jimbo Wales, I'm surprised to see you claim that admin X is not neutral and "just doesn't like the subject"–we hear that bogus argument all the time in AfD discussions, for instance. Slatersteven, wut? Whoever you were patronizing, the other party doesn't need your help, I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice bitched about it on his youtube channel, so Ian.thomson blocked him and threatened to block any new editor who appeared to the talk page. Veteran (2007) editor Planetary Chaos Redux came back from a four year absense to say "I'm seeing a lot of bias, bad faith within Wikipedia editors" so Ian.thomson indeffed him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Planetary_Chaos_Redux

Iridescent and TonyBalloni are now talking about having Jimmy Wales site-banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent#For_ye_fellow_lovers_of_Jimmy_Wales

"Wikipedia long ago became an insular, closed system that only those with precisely the right attitude could participate in." - Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia

https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1096225541449891841 https://archive.is/cOlCV

Luciusfoxx suggested moving the information about author/activist Dinesh D'Souza's felony for a campaign finance violation from the lede of his biography to elsewhere in the page, arguing that it was a relatively minor incident and he was pardoned for it. It's like the time one of the Wikipedians wanted to describe Tom Brady as a sex harasser and not a football player, except it got into the page this time. MjolnirPants responded with arguments such as "fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube," so Luciusfoxx reported MjolnirPants to ANI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=884315948&oldid=884314844#User:MPants_at_work_reported_by_User:Luciusfoxx_for_severe_Personal_Attacks_and_threats

Pudeo noted that MjolnirPants had agreed to be civil in a past ANI, so Floquenbeam indeffed Luciusfoxx with a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry that was suggested by Volunteer Marek and endorsed by Rhododendrites and SerialNumber54129. Drmies denied his appeal and Bishonen revoked his talk page access. Calton accused Pudeo of having "aiding and abetted" a sockpuppet.

Cullen328 came out of left field and blocked MjolnirPants for one day. Nil Einne, Snow_Rise, Dlohcierekimb, and Davey2010 endorsed the block. Lourdes, Swarm, and Tornado chaser argued for an extension to indef. Objective3000 endorsed both blocks.

Other users started to look into MjolnirPants's behavior. Smccandlish reported his EditNotice page https://archive.is/9myUL to MfD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice

Jwray reported MjolnirPants's WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS page that calls every social scientist in the world a Nazi and says they should be banned from Wikipedia. The page was endorsed by Legacypac, Dlohcierekim, Rhododendrites, Johnuniq, TonyBallioni, and Boing! said Zebedee. PeterTheFourth accused Jwray of being a Nazi for having complained two weeks earlier about "a cesspit of liberal bias."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MjolnirPants/nonazis

Legacypac reported Jwray back to ANI where Dlohcierekim, TonyBallioni, Ivanvector, and Boing! said Zebedee all agreed that Jwray was a Nazi. TonyBallioni gave him a discretionary sanction warning so that any admin would be justified banning him on sight the next time he edits in political articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=884315948&oldid=884314844#Jwray

Jewish groups accused Ilhan Omar of using antisemitic tropes, so there is a concerted effort on her page to scrub it down from "accusations of antisemitism" to a "controversial remarks" section that makes clear that "Donald Trump … was accused of using Jewish stereotypes and anti-Semitic imagery during his presidential campaign."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilhan_Omar&diff=884570740&oldid=884485802

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ilhan_Omar

When Wikieditor19920 noted that her own party leader Nancy Pelosi had condemned Omar, Wikipedians respond…

> What's the basis for the claim that this is a "prominent" controversy? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

> This is a complicated issue, and it needs to be properly described in the body of page. There are many different views about it. See, for example, Ilhan Omar is right about the influence of the Israel lobby. [links to The Guardian] … My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

> My very best wishes, thank you for removing that. There is no consensus for including it, and the arguments here are lousy. … Drmies (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

> @Wikieditor19920: to be frank, I think that you're adopting a strategy of gish gallop here that borders on disruptive. … Nblund talk 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

When Wikieditor19920 and Calthinus provided links to the New York Times and Times of Israel discussing Omar's controversies over a period of several years:

> That link does not support in any way that there is some controversy. Much less a prominent one. nableezy - 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

> According to numerous other sources, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Forward, Haaretz, and Vox, the latest controversy is as much about Republican leaders' hypocrisy and double standards as it is about Omar's comments… —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC))

Sir Joseph, one of the site's few openly Jewish editors, takes the other extreme.

> She has tweeted 100% antisemitic tweets and has been called out for it, it's PC enough to put in front allegations, but we certainly don't need to whitewash her even more by labeling it Israel lobbying. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

> Here's Politico calling her comments antisemitic, [26] here's SE Cupp, calling her to be held accountable for her antisemitic tweets, [27], here's local Minnesota CBS affiliate TV, [28], AOL, Omar apologizes for antisemitic tweet, [29], here's one where Jewish leaders in her district had to talk to her about her cavalier attitude about antisemitism [30]. … Sir Joseph (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas attempted to accuse Wikieditor19920 of hypocrisy for changing a heading in another article on Steve King, a Republican, from "Criticism by the Anti-Defamation League" to "Antisemitism controversy in 2018". Ewen Douglas then complained that someone had added "alleged" "to describe Trump supporters using anti-Semitic tropes and Steve King supporting white nationalists/supremacists" on the Ilhan Omar page.

Nableezy called for Doug Weller to come in and apply 1RR to the page, then My Very Best Wishes and Nableezy reported Sir Joseph to ANEW and AE for restoring the "antisemitism" header after they had removed it. Sir Joseph was blocked 3 days for the 1RR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=884291134&oldid=884290100#User:Sir_Joseph_reported_by_User:My_very_best_wishes_(Result:_wrong_venue)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=884540508&oldid=884534120#Sir_Joseph

Nableezy then reported Sir Joseph to AE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=884540508&oldid=884534120#Sir_Joseph

Volunteer Marek jumped in to drop links to every time on Sir Joseph's talk page history where he was accused of violating 1RR and say that Sir Joseph was guily every time, including one time when Bishonen defended Sir Joseph.

> Sir Joseph routinely violates WP:1RR on controversial articles under that restriction, then tries to WP:GAME the rules by claiming it's not actually a revert or whatever other "exception" he can invent for himself [34] [35] [36] [37] (just a few). This is a pattern.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_6#Careful_about_that_1RR_rule

> That is indeed not how it works, PPX. A single revert can't violate the 1RR rule, no matter how many previous edits it reverts. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC).

(… part 1 of 2…)

Sir Joseph asked Dlohcierekim to impose a one-way interaction ban on Marek for casting aspersions.

> I don't want to open a whole AE action or post to ANI since that is a whole drama fest. I do want this resolved and I would like a one way IBAN since he has been gunning for me for a while, he brought an AE action against me a while back that got shot down. But can you please warn him or do something about the aspersions? Saying that 1RR doesn't apply to a page that 1RR doesn't apply to is not gaming the system. Thanks.Sir Joseph (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

> @Sir Joseph: Sorry no. You and @Volunteer Marek: need to take this to ANI. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

> Combatants are urged to carry on at ANI. Sabres at dawn at 10 paces, I think. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

title=User_talk:Dlohcierekim&diff=884445194&oldid=884417529#Civility_and_casting_aspersions

At Dlohcierekim's insistence, Sir Joseph reported Volunteer Marek to ANI. Dlohcierekim responds…

> I'm sorry, this is just an impression, but coming to my talk as you did could lead one to feel you might be attempting to game the system … Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

> As this is all discussable at AE, that's the place to discuss it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Fish+Karate pretends to be neutral at ANI and tells him that he would have gotten a fair hearing at AE.

> All you need to say is, within your AE section, "I object to the representation of my edits as "gaming 1RR" by Volunteer Marek and note that no evidence provided supports this". That's it. It will be read… Fish+Karate 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

… while back at AE we see that Sir Joseph had complained about it there, was ignored by every admin present, and we also see this:

> No real comment on the AE enforcement, I don't think there's enough here to justify a block, but to note that Sir Joseph has gone to AN/I and requested a one-way interaction ban be imposed on Volunteer Marek for casting aspersions (note that if he'd also used the term hounding we would have had an ANI complaint bingo). I think that is not a helpful thing to do. Fish+Karate 10:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

So we had two admins, Dlohcierekim and Fish+Karate, trolling a user and ANI for reporting that Volunteer Marek was falsifying diffs. Both of them acted like Sir Joseph was terribly wrong to go to ANI when they had told him to go there, and both of them acted like Sir Joseph's incomplete ANI report was not worth responding to other than with a boomerang when both of them had seen everything and knew exactly what was going on, and anyone could go to AE and see for themselves.

>>332682

Broken/missing links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Civility_and_casting_aspersions

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=884547579&oldid=884544250#Volunteer_Marek_casting_aspersions

The MjolnirPants drama >>332678 continues!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MjolnirPants&diff=884466051&oldid=884465173

Roxy the Dog repeats earlier >>330645 support for uncivil comments:

> I have every sympathy with your position … -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 threatens to indef Guy Macon as a troll for saying that the personal attack that Cullen328 blocked MjolnirPants was a personal attack that deserved a block.

> … "fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube"[1] really did deserve a block in the range of one day to one week. Wait out your block and then dial back on the personal attacks. –Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

> > The fact that I am responding to you shows that I do not believe that you are an irredeemable troll, but rather an editor who needs to change their behavior, and I sincerely hope that you will do so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl extended the block to one week after MjolnirPants cussed out Cullen328 in his unblock request.

> There is a clear consensus at ANI that this sweary personal attack stuff has to stop. Your use of a sweary personal attack as a request to lift a block for a sweary personal attack shows that the problem has not been resolved. –BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Leading to immediate demands that MjolnirPants be unblocked and BrownHairedGirl lose her admin bit.

> Wow, way to escalate! Add my hand to the unblock showing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

> Me also. ——SerialNumber54129 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

> BrownHairedGirl, I tried to stay out of this mess, but this block is absolutely ridiculous… Nihlus 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

> This is seriously showing a lack of judgment on your part. Nihlus 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

MjolnirPants said something that needed to be oversighted and was indeffed by Ivanvector and TonyBalloni.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MjolnirPants&diff=884684179&oldid=884674993

Bishonen threatens Leaky Cauldron.

> The way you have ALL behaved here in the last hour or so is actually a disgrace. You should all take yourselves off to ANI. Just remember the guy who's page this actually is probably watching. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

> > And you are actually trolling, Leaky caldron. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

And Pokerplayer513 comes in to praise Mjolnirpants and condemn Luciusfoxx.

The ban against you was unjust. You being upset at blatant pov pushing and a condescending attitude is understandable. That guy was an obvious sock. Get back to editing soon. - Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an RFC over whether to consider the Daily Caller a reliable source. Let's see how it goes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258#RfC:_The_Daily_Caller

> 4 [shifi] $ A personal preference for facts over personal profit. cygnis insignis 12:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 for the issues regarding preference for profit over fact, for the issues of the obvious extreme right skew and for bordering on WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS territory tbh. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 I can't think of a specific case where having this as a source is worth the trouble it's caused and will probably continue to cause. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 based on the usual source [https://www.adfontesmedia.com/, a 1-person blog] … the core issue is the usual right wing bubble problem of positive feedback and ideology being given greater precedence than factual accuracy. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 Not quite as loopy as Infowars or Worldtruth, but their bias is massive and their lack of respect for accuracy not far behind. This is one of those sites that makes me wonder why we're always selecting out the Daily Mail for criticism and letting these even worse ones through. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 The Daily Caller is hot garbage. See below. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 If it wasn't enough before, their story about a nude selfie of a new member of Congress they don't like, that was fake, convinced me to !vote. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

> > @Objective3000, At what point was that story unreliable?… was it their initial version that reported how other people (not them) thought the photo was real… or was it the subsequent (clarified) version where they explicitly make it clear that the photo is fake? Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 - Highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 I thought it was obvious that this website is extremely unreliable due to its unmitigated devotion to being unethical and flat-out lying. Somehow they make Fox News seem reasonable and measured. Trillfendi (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 Pretty much the antithesis of a reliable source. Their extreme and unabashed political slant aside, it's not a great sign when most of the article about them is devoted to well-sourced instances where they deliberately published falsehoods. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4, or, failing that, option 3. They clearly present intentionally false and misleading stories; the only real question is whether people are actually trying to cite them enough to make the red tape of overt depreciation necessary. Personally, I've noticed a recent uptick in people trying to cite them, which suggests that sort of measure might be needed. –Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 Racist, white supremacist, science-denialist publication that churns out outright false or intentionally misleading information to smear opposing movements and public figures. … Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

> Option 3 or 4: Looks like they have a history of fabricating stories and just reading through their articles makes their reliability appear questionable.—-ZiaLater (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4 – I acknowledge that I tend to be on the harsher side regarding what I see as systematically problematic sources, but really, the Daily Caller has had many strikes, and they are out. What sort of professional outlet with any sense of dignity or ethics (or even a pretension of them?) posts fake nudes of a female politician [[9]], and then when they are easily demonstrably fakes? … –Calthinus (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

> Option 4: Ample evidence to justify this. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the strength of all of this amateur name-calling with very little evidence,

> There is an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. … Drmies (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a rigged vote.

SMcCandlish reported Beyond My Ken to ANI for edit warring images again >>332381

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=886617016&oldid=886616775#Proposed_image-placement_topic_ban_for_Beyond_My_Ken

BMK's behavior was defended by Legacypac and Fram who called for a boomerang against SMcCandlish, Nihlus who threatened one, Tsumikiria, Miniapolis, and Grandpallama who claims this report is part of a conspiracy.

> BMK is a highly respected and productive member of the community, and I'm distressed that this seems like the latest in a series of ANI reports that target some of the best on WP and result in their being driven from the project. Grandpallama (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite misses the point.

> Oppose We don't topic-ban people on the basis of their previous block log, unless those blocks were directly related to the topic in hand. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The report was supported by Softlavender, Mackenson, Lourdes, Laszlo Panaflex, and a few other.

> BMK's bullying around image placement has got to stop, just like his bullying behaviors in other areas that have been much-discussed in the past. Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne voted "strongest possible support" for a sanction.

> It's clear from BMK's responses that they don't really care that their changes which offer no real improvement do cause genuine and clear negatives for others so AGF is no longer needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)07:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

In the end, BMK again gets away without a sanction for behavior that would have gotten any IP newbie banned as a vandal.

> There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:

> BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.

> When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.

> Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)