User talk:Anamelesseditor

Welcome!

Hello, Anamelesseditor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Antifa. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! PackMecEng (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

The COI tag is very serious and there has to be more evidence that a difference of opinion about content inclusion/exclusion. There is only 1 author in the world, but there are 10s of thousands of readers and fans. A more likely explanation it is one among the later group. -- GreenC 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to prove definitively, but the IP address in question only edits two articles: those of Isabel Wilkerson's books. Wilkerson, the author, resides in Atlanta. The IP address is from the Atlanta area. Anamelesseditor (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not matter. Millions of people live in the Atlanta area. And this is a very famous person with a ton of readers/fans. -- GreenC 21:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irreversible Damage

I assume from your description of my revert as "unexplained" that you did not see my edit summaries explaining why I reverted you. For your convenience, they were: rv WP:DRIVEBY tagging with no accompanying section at talk page. please raise your specific concerns on the talk page and begin a discussion; if they go unaddressed then a tag may be needed and then just now: I explained quite clearly, and linked to an even more detailed explanation at WP:DRIVEBY. Discuss on the talk page *first*, and if your concerns go unaddressed, *then* tag. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

FWIW, I agree with your assessment of that article. Something is seriously wrong. I wrote a slightly more detailed response, but I deleted it because I don't want to get sucked into the drama: you can view it in the talk page history if you wish.Park3r (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Paleo Neonate – 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you implying with this vague message? Anamelesseditor (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard message. In any case, those rules seem to be a mechanism for intimidation, to discourage editors who would otherwise contribute. Given the undue prominence given by search engines, particularly Google, to Wikipedia, it creates a fertile target for fiefdoms and unchecked manipulation. Park3r (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions

If my purpose here is to push Chinese propaganda, don't you don't think that I'd have to use WP:SPA sockpuppets, to push views that are not those of the reliable sources and edits contrary to WP policies, because I would have been blocked or banned for it already? That I'd be supporting conspiracy theories like that it originates from the US, or from another country via a frozen food chain? Your aspersions lack evidence, your interpretation of WP:NPOV was flawed and article talk pages are also not the place to accuse editors. User talk pages can be used for policy-based warnings and administrator noticeboards can be used to report editors when necessary (WP:ANI, for instance). —Paleo Neonate – 08:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah. The proof is in the pudding. You clearly are pushing the CCP line and do whatever you can to limit discussion in the article of plausible alternatives, despite numerous experts and national governments saying they should be pursued and investigated (something the CCP prevents by forbidding access to raw data). Anamelesseditor (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without casting aspersions on particular editors, I feel you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. It is quite possible that you will find a sympathetic ear from other editors if you feel strongly that certain content is being manipulated or discussion is being gagged by editors who you feel may be shutting down discussion on talk pages, whether in service of a hostile state actor, or for other reasons, bearing WP:AGF in mind, of course. Park3r (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. May need to do that. Anamelesseditor (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Anamelesseditor! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of white supremacist from Oklahoma City bombing

Hello. Your removal of "white supremacist" from Oklahoma City bombing puzzles me, because it appears to be sourced and cited to a reliable source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/opinion/mcveigh-new-zealand-white-supremacy.html . Are you familiar with the assertion that Wikipedia articles follow Verifiability, not truth? Respectfully, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source you reference: A) was an opinion piece written decades after the fact; B) provided no evidence whatsoever that the bombing (in which virtually all of the victims were white) was motivated by “white supremacy”; C) was written by a political pundit, not an authority on domestic terrorism. Are you familiar with WP:RSEDITORIAL? Anamelesseditor (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Girth Summit, an administrator here. I see that you have already been advised about the discretionary sanctions in place in the modern US politics topic area, so I won't repeat that notification. You are removing content that is supported by the cited sources. Your changes have been contested. The onus is now on you to gain a consensus for your changes on the article's talk page. If you continue to try to reinstate your changes without achieving consensus, you should expect to be blocked from editing. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 20:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "Girth Summit". As I'm sure you're capable of reading, the talk page already includes a comment by a different editor objecting to the inclusion of unsubstantiated claims made by political pundits in opinion pieces. These are neither authoritative nor reliable. It's telling that the people who keep adding politically-motivated opinion to the lede can only find articles written decades after the fact that are clearly designed to tie modern fringe political movements to the bombing. Since you're an administrator, you should be familiar with WP:RSEDITORIAL. Anamelesseditor (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you felt it necessary to put my name in scare quotes, but, whatever. The point is that you are ignoring process. You made a change - cool, so far so good. That change was contested - fair enough, different people have different views. The next step is discussion - which should take place on the article's talk page, not in edit summaries. You can read more about this at WP:BRD. It is your contention that the sources are inadequate to support the content; if you gain consensus for your changes on the talk page, your changes will stick. If you do not, they won't. If you keep trying to reinstate them, you will find yourself incapable of editing the page, or engaging in discussion. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 20:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Girth", someone added a claim that was supported by a flimsy opinion piece written by a non-expert, in violation of WP:RSEDITORIAL. A second editor raised a concern in January about it on the Talk page. But anytime it's removed, the offending editor reverts the change. So, I don't know what you expect people who care about the quality of the article to do. The concern was raised months ago that the article is incompliant with WP:RSEDITORIAL. You should go warn the people who insist on inserting politically motivated opinion pieces and decades-after-the-fact retcons into the article. They're the ones breaking the rules. Anamelesseditor (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Oklahoma City bombing. Giant Snowman 20:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you're on about. I provided a valid reason in the edit summary and the Talk page, as did a previous editor. I've appealed your completely unwarranted ban. Anamelesseditor (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Girth Summit _(blether) 20:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Giant Snowman 20:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anamelesseditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I received a warning from User:GiantSnowman that I would be blocked "the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary". However, I gave a valid reason in the edit summary and explained the rationale for the edit on the article's Talk page, as did a previous editor months ago. This ban is completely unwarranted. Anamelesseditor (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, it's long overdue. Having looked over your record I find you to be a classically tendentious and querulous editor who has serious does-not-play-well-with-others issues, most notably wikilawyering, problems assuming good faith and following consensus. It's not any one single thing, really, it's a combination of all of them.

If you continue in the vein of your discussion below, I would not be surprised if another admin decided to revoke your talk page access. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To the reviewing admin - this editor has a clear NPOV and is WP:NOTHERE. Their first few posts were to moan about Antifa, they've also edited stuff related to Trump, COVID, and other right-wing/'conservative' topics. Now they are focussing on the Oklahoma City bombing article where they have edit warred by repeatedly and disruptively removed sourced content they disagree with from a FA. They ignored multiple warnings and an ANI thread to continue to be disruptive. Giant Snowman 21:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin, please note GiantSnowman's own telling admission that my ban was politically motivated. I'm not sure what my opinion on Antifa and Trump (both bad) have to do with his decision to incorrectly ban me for failing to provide an edit summary. Contrary to GiantSnowman's claims, I provided rationale for my edit both in the edit summary and on the Talk page. It is very disheartening to see admins abuse their "power" for political reasons, as this person has just admitted to doing. Anamelesseditor (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary at best applies to one of the three sources you removed, leaving two sources that you removed with no valid explanation. Also, fuck off. --JBL (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, that's a lie. My edit summary pointed to the Talk page where I expounded on the rationale. Second, I was banned for not including an edit summary, when in reality I did. GiantSnowman, I hope you'll address this personal attack (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) and vulgarity as severely as you reacted to my (fictional) edits without edit summaries. Anamelesseditor (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for being disruptive and removing changes without consensus, in spite of ample warnings that your changes required obtaining a new consensus, and for edit warring and POV pushing. You were not blocked for not including an edit summary. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rockstone, please see the ban warning message from GiantSnowman. The warning said, “You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary.” My edit immediately following this warning, for which I was banned (although we now know it was for political reasons, as GiantSnowman admitted), did include a valid reason in the edit summary, as well as on the Talk page. It’s frankly absurd that I’d get a warning that says (paraphrasing) “you must include edit summaries or be banned”, and yet when I include an edit summary per instructions, I am promptly banned. I’m fine taking it to the talk page from now on, but this ban is absurd — especially given that I followed the instructions of the banning admin and that same admin later admitted that the ban was politically motivated. Anamelesseditor (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] lolol I can see we're dealing with a real brain genius here. --JBL (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, this is the second time this editor has violated Wikipedia’s ban on person attacks. Anamelesseditor (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This business of edits without edit summaries appears to be a red herring. The actual warning was not to remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. WP:SUMMARYNO tells editors to avoid misleading edit summaries, while the edit in question asserted it was Reverting to previous version that complies with WP:RSEDITORIAL, but actually removed a non-RSEDITORIAL source and related content, as well. The editor is now pretending that it was all about the summaries, when the actual problem was the removal of properly sourced content without a valid reason, not to mention being against consensus. They should already have understood this, but apparently they just don't hear it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll: - please do not WP:GRAVEDANCE or insult other users, even those indeffed. Giant Snowman 06:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt review, Daniel Case. Is there any process for appealing this ban further? While I appreciate your explanation, I find this entire process to be unfair, inconsistent, and highly subjective. As I explained in my appeal, I was given a warning by GiantSnowman that very clearly said I would be banned if I made one more edit without a valid edit summary. Following those instructions, I included a detailed edit summary and explanation on the article's Talk page for the one additional edit I made. Immediately after, I was banned. Now, when I point out this obvious inconsistency in my ban appeal, I'm accused of "wikilawyering". It's damned if I do, damned if I don't. Likewise, you accuse me of not assuming good faith and being querulous, when the only person resorting to ad hominems here is the admin who banned me, who accused me of "hav[ing] a clear NPOV (sic)", "moan[ing] about Antifa", and "edit[ing] stuff related to Trump, COVID, and other right-wing/'conservative' topics" -- very clear assumptions of bad faith -- while another user told me to "fuck off" with no consequence. And yet, I'm the one who is threatened with revocation of talk page access. It's quite baffling, to be honest. Finally, as I said before, if this ban were to be removed, I would give you my commitment that I'd avoid any further edits to the page for which consensus is not first reached on the article's Talk page. Although I was not aware of it or warned about it, I understand the 3RR rule now and would be sure to abide by it in future. Anamelesseditor (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this comment out of the declined unblock appeal, which was the wrong place for it. I'll leave Daniel Case to respond to any questions you have about his decline, but you are at liberty to post a new unblock request and another administrator will review it. I'll also note that the warning from GiantSnowman was not the only one you were given - I told you that your edits were contested and that you needed to gain consensus on the talk page, but you ignored me and continued reinstating it.

I'll also observe that this edit was made to the article a few minutes after you posted here. I do not know whether that was you or not, but if it was, I would urge you to desist - evading your block to continue an edit war is very likely to result in the article being protected from editing, and any future unblock requests from you being declined. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 16:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Girth Summit. You're right that you said I need to take it to the Talk page, which I did (where the issue was already discussed by other editors). I didn't realize I would be banned for one more edit, especially given the ban warning I got from GiantSnowman seemed to be more about the edit summary and Talk page than the act of editing itself. I hope you can see how I would be confused, given the "official" warning basically just said "include edit summaries". Had I known I would be banned for one additional edit, I of course would not have made that one additional edit, which I regret doing. As I said, I have now read WP:3RR and would certainly avoid violating that rule in the future.

Regarding the edit you linked, I promise you that's not me. If I were going to evade this ban (which would be easy to do), I wouldn't be wasting my time pleading my case here. I suspect that other people have the same problem as me with that claim, given that it's unsupported by the evidence (the FBI investigated connections to white supremacist organizations and found none) and no contemporaneous articles support it. It was something that another editor flagged months ago on the Talk page. Anamelesseditor (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't perform just one more edit after I told you that though. You reverted me, then you reverted Discospinster, then you reverted GiantSnowman - all after I had told you that you needed to gain consensus (not just post a comment) on the talk page. The block was inevitable, I'm afraid, and your comments above trying to imply that it was politically motivated don't reflect well on you. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anamelesseditor, the warning you received was not basically just ... "include edit summaries" - it said you should not remove content without a valid reason (which you should provide in the summary). Your "last straw" edit violated WP:SUMMARYNO by removing content beyond what you explained in the summary, and for no valid reason. You also did this against Talk page consensus and while edit warring. Your repeated claim that it was just about edit summaries isn't grounded in the facts on the ground and is never going to see you unblocked - your doing this on your own Talk page is already becoming disruptive, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth Summit. You are correct that I reverted you and Discospinster (after both reverted my changes to the article). You then told me to gain consensus on the Talk page. I'm not disputing that. What I'm trying to point out is that at 20:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC) I received a message from GiantSnowman that said, "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Oklahoma City bombing." I (obviously mistakenly) interpreted that message as meaning that my edits were being reverted because they weren't properly explained in either the edit summaries or the Talk page, and that futher edits without summaries would result in a ban. So, when I made a final edit two minutes later at 20:53, 20 April 2022, I included an edit summary, as well as a detailed explanation on the article's Talk page. I was immediately banned for that final edit, as GiantSnowman noted on the ANI page, even though, in my mind at the time, I had addressed the issue that GiantSnowman had raised. Now that I am aware of WP:3RR, I understand that the edit summary had nothing to do with it -- it was the edit warring. I admit that I broke that rule. What I'm asking for is understanding about how I could reasonably be confused by the mixed messages I received from admins. That's all. If you are willing to unban me, I will fully comply with 3RR, avoid confrontational exchanges with other editors, and strive to achieve consensus for changes via good faith discussion on the Talk page. Anamelesseditor (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above, you wrote "You are correct that I reverted you and Discospinster (after both reverted my changes to the article). You then told me to gain consensus on the Talk page." That is not the correct order of events. I told you that you needed to gain consensus on the article's talk page, and that you would likely be blocked if you continued trying to reinstate your changes, at 20:17, after your first reinstatement. Your subsequent reinstatements at 20:28, 20:35 and 20:53 all came after that warning, so I really don't think there was much to be confused about; if you were unsure, you could have asked for guidance, but instead you chose to accuse Discospinster and myself of being politically motivated on the article talkpage, much as you did above with Giant Snowman - that's not a great approach to take in what is supposed to be a collaborative editing environment. I'm not personally inclined to unblock you, but as I said, you are at liberty to make another unblock request and another administrator will review it. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I should have taken it to the talk page instead of reverting. And, when I did take it to the Talk page, I should not have impugned your and Discospinster's motives like I did. And, even though GiantSnowman's warning message implied that edits with valid summaries were OK, I should have known to be more collaborative and consensus-driven. These are my mistakes and I apologize. I'll think about another appeal but will likely forgo it so as not to waste any more of anyone's time, as I can see the odds of success are low and no one wants me here anyway. Anamelesseditor (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anamelesseditor, may I make a couple of friendly suggestions? Slow down. Take a deep breath. Wikipedia is not a front in the culture wars: we are a neutral encyclopedia. Have you read the helpful things folks have written above? Specifically, did you read the Guide to appealing blocks that is listed in Daniel Case's unblock decline? It is written in bold above, in order to catch your eye. If you have not, I might recommend that you do, paying careful attention to sections 3.1 (Understand what you did and why you have been blocked) and 3.3.2 (Talk about yourself, not others) before requesting another unblock. Railing about the misdeeds of others is not going to help you when they are not blocked but you are. On that topic, you have asked a couple of times if you can appeal Daniel Case's decline, and none of us have answered that question ... because the answer is self-evident in the same paragraph as the Guide to appealing blocks.

We want you to succeed as a Wikipedia editor, but you really need to slow down and read the things people are trying to help you with. Otherwise if you continue on your current tendentious path, then I fear your experience as a contributor to the project will be short and unproductive. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kralizec. I appreciate the thoughtful note. You're right, of course. I absolutely got worked up over nothing. I'll take a beat and then try again with a less combative and more solutions-oriented appeal. Anamelesseditor (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]