User talk:Rosswikieditor

January 2020

How much does Jack Buckby pay you to monitor his wikipedia page / are you Jack Buckby? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.66.135 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paid by Jack Buckby and my name is Ross. I am autistic, and I am concerned about political bias being incorporated into this article. I do not care if I agree with the person (Jack Buckby), as I think it is important to maintain Wikipedia's standards and ensure inaccurate information or bias is not unfairly used. I think so far this article accurately sums up Jack Buckby's far right past, and his more recent work that is critical of the far right.

You quite clearly are paid by Jack Buckby; your edit history shows you only edit his article. Reporting facts of Buckby's disgraceful past is not 'political bias'. You deleting history is. You should be ashamed of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.66.135 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not paid by him. I have autism so maybe my interests are not like yours but I am allowed to edit the article and I do so within the realms of Wikipedia's guidelines. Lots of edits have been made and his far-right history is actually very clear on this article. Which I think is important. I am not a supporter of his activism. I'm sorry you think I should be ashamed of myself, but you seem to be expressing personal dislike or opinions towards this person and in this talk. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a place where personal grievances are aired. Buckby's far-right activity is well documented on this page, and rightly so. However, the article should be written within the realms of Wikipedia's own guidelines and sometimes it has been changed in a way that it does not meet Wikipedia's standards. It is important that the article reflects objectively the nature of Jack Buckby's work.

Stop saying you have autism as if it is relevant. I will keep adding the very relevant details of Buckby's fascist past as and when you delete it. No personal grievances are being aired; I am simply rephrasing this article so that it is a true reflection of history. Jack Buckby is a renowned far-right and the article does not properly address this. I will be looking to re-add his connections to the Proud Boys as well as for some reason you think this is not appropriate to include. Jack Buckby was heavily involved with establishing For Britain just under two years ago. For Britain is a far right party. Buckby is attempting to rebrand himself as a 'moderate' conservative as he has realised his past makes him unemployable. People do not forget the damage he has caused and I will not let history be rewritten by you, his stooge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.66.135 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have described Jack Buckby's past as 'disgraceful' while also stating that you are not being biased. This is obviously not possible. Your reference to his sharing of a racist AIDs poster and his expulsion from university is important and has been added to the existing comments about his university expulsion. However, you must meet the requirements set out by Wikipedia. Unfortunately, blogs are not sufficient evidence.

His past is disgraceful and to suggest otherwise is weird. There is no such emotive language used in the article so there is no bias. Facts are simply being reported. Giving a presentation at a BNP organised conference whilst a student is very relevant, especially as during the speech at 1:20 he says, "Nationalism is the cause we need to fight, the issue is that young people don't associate with the word. So, as long as we keep the ideology it doesn't matter what word we used, it's obviously about spin." Clearly the National Culturist were a cover for a fascist organisation. From his own mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.66.135 (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have very strong opinions and that is fine, but "disgraceful" is a subjective term and demonstrates some bias. I am a British liberal, and not supportive of his views. It doesn't matter. This report is objective, so it doesn't matter whether you think he is disgraceful or if you think he is trying to rebrand himself. Facts are facts, and it remains true that Buckby has done multiple interviews, written pieces, and a book which discuss his far right past. This is accurately reflected in the piece, and his far right past is also very accurately reflected. I would encourage you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's rules.

There is no mention of his views being disgraceful in the article, as such the edits will remain. You obsessively monitoring his page can be interpreted as bias and a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Facts are Facts and Buckby has not rejected any of his past comments. If you can provide evidence of him doing so then I will reconsider my edits.

There are multiple sources already in the article, but others include:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/buckby-now-more-than-ever-conservatives-must-reclaim-the-extremism-narrative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM4W08T6_MM&feature=youtu.be https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/the_recipe_for_farright_terror.html https://humanevents.com/2020/01/09/dont-let-extremists-derail-america-first/

LOL - not once does Buckby accept that his past comments are abhorent. The repeated phrase he uses is "My experience in the far Right as a teenager". No he very much was not a teenager when he was editor of the Proud Boys magazine, Press Officer for Liberty GB, chairman of the National Culturists, giving speeches at BNP conferences, setting up For Britain with Anne Marie Waters, laughing around with Tommy Robinson on a sofa.... You really must hide your bias better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.66.135 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed an administrator, as you have broken the rules by repeatedly undoing edits. I have little else to say as you have dragged this dispute into the gutter with your personal comments.

looooooooooooooool. Don't rewrite history on a fascist is my final comment to you. You have been duped by Buckby, it's pathetic to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.66.135 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello Rosswikieditor. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Rosswikieditor. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Rosswikieditor|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero paid stake. I am just interested in political bias being removed from Wikipedia, which is what I see from your account. It is quite clear you are trying to change this article based on your personal political feelings (you are, after all, an editor for RationalWiki which labels this person a white supremacist/nationalist and implies he is anti-Semitic. - Rosswikieditor 10:33 14/11/2019

Cheers - please be sure to review WP:RS, WP:BLP and you probably need to look over WP:AGF and especially WP:NPA. Thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Jack Buckby shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP you were edit warring with for 60 hours, and am letting you off with this warning. Nobody wins in an edit war. You never warned the IP or reported the edit war at WP:ANEW. Next time, do that, and don't engage in an edit war. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am still learning how to use Wikipedia properly. If you have any advice I am happy to receive it. I am interested in learning how to report edit warring and vandalism and how to become more proficient in using Wikipedia so I can expand to other articles. - Rosswikieditor

Vocal Critic of Neo-Fascism and Far-Right Violence

Anonymous user 2.25.195.68

Hello,

This is a contentious page as there are a lot of Buckby's political opponents in there and I am new to Wikipedia, this is really the only page I have been editing as I'm still learning the ropes. I have tried communicating with the person removing this sentence but they did not respond. This is in reference to anonymous user 2.25.195.68 who has removed a section that describes Buckby as a "vocal critic of neo-fascism and far-right violence" which he is. He is a former far-right activist and his activity as a far-right activist is extremely well documented on this page, which is important. However, his later work is being removed by consecutive editors. It is unsurprising as a lot of people dislike Buckby but the facts are the facts and if he is publishing articles and books criticizing the far right, then this should be reflected. If his vocal opposition to the far right is not included, then the page doesn't accurately reflect who this person is.

His opposition to the far right is noted in the many articles he has written on the topic, videos, and his newest book. However these were flagged by one editor as "primary sources" which are not allowed. The fact remains, however, that they are sources and he is vocally opposed to the far right. Wikipedia should portray the truth, if it does not accurately portray this person then what is the point of Wikipedia?

As I say, this whole page documents his far-right past but if he is criticizing the far right then it should be referenced as it is the most recent description of his work.

A more recent editor, by the IP address 2.25.195.68, has removed this line about his opposition to neo-fascism and far-right violence, after another anonymous IP address did

the same. This person claims that one of the sources used is a book review "commissioned" by Buckby but there is no evidence for this. The article is written by one of the regular contributors to the website who regularly publishes book reviews, so this claim is unlikely to be true. There are several sources, some of which primary, that demonstrate Buckby is "vocally opposed to neo-fascism and the far right."

I think it's important, as a matter of precedent, that Wikipedia demonstrates this person's extensive past within the far right but also references his vocal opposition to the far right. If it is true, then it is true, and it should be represented on this page.

I am still learning, so I'm unsure what step to take next as I don't want to simply keep undoing the edits made by this anonymous user.

thanks, ross Rosswikieditor (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor[reply]

Here is an idea that perhaps 2.25.195.68 will agree with!

There is a sentence that reads "Buckby frequently publishes content that is critical of Islam, left-wing activism, multiculturalism, and the European Union."

I have done some searching and I can't actually find any criticism or content about Islam from Buckby for at least a couple of years. This does throw into question the idea that he "frequently" publishes content on this topic, though at the same time, he has published quite a LOT about Islam in the past.

So I would say it's probably worth keeping the Islam reference but, by the same logic, shouldn't we add that he frequently publishes content that is critical of the far right? Buckby has done videos, interviews, and written columns on this topic, as well as a book, which all criticize the far right. Perhaps, this reference to his criticism of neo-fascism and/or far-right violence could be incorporated into that sentence?

Hope to hear back from you on this!

Rosswikieditor (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor[reply]

How dare you suggest I am editing Buckby's page because I do not like him; I do not like history being rewritten.

It is evident from Buckby's twitter and youtube that he considers people that aren't 'far-right', by most educated persons in the field, 'far-left' - he is no authority on what is and isn't the 'far-right' and as such he is not a vocal critic of it because he cannot even define it properly.

Buckby sent a tweet offering his book for free in exchange for a review - Helen Dale responded to this tweet taking him up on the offer. The review is overtly positive and as such is not a reliable source considering her history.

He is still far more critical of anyone left of the centre-right than 'neo-nazis'; evidenced by his pathetic ramblings about Dominic Cummings posted yesterday to his youtube.

He is engaged to a woman that frequently engages with alt-right, white supremacists on twitter. She often posts inflammatory tweets aimed at non-white people.

It's sad that you cannot see Buckby for what he really is, critic of the far-right, he is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.195.68 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for responding. You seem quite offended and that was not my intention. Buckby criticizes the far right, specifically neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and racists frequently on his Twitter. Book reviews are perfectly common, it's a practice in the publishing industry, and him sending a book to be reviewed does not mean it was commissioned. Books frequently receive negative reviews after being sent to outlets for free.

Your use of phrases like "pathetic ramblings about Dominic Cummings" I'm afraid suggests you have quite a personal and emotional reason to be removing things from Buckby's page. If he criticizes the far right, which he does in his book, in his articles, in videos and in interviews, then it should be portrayed on this page. Whether you agree that he has changed his mind or not is a personal matter, if he criticizes neo-Nazis then this should be established on his biography.

How, therefore, would you suggest this be resolved? Remember you can't edit pages based on personal opinions and feelings. There are several instances of him criticizing the far right, and his book is just one example of him criticizing the far right. If he criticizes the left, that doesn't change the fact he has also criticizes the far right.

I would hope you might consider editing the section about the kind of things he criticizes in content he "frequently publishes" but I am getting the impression that you don't want to accept anything that suggests Buckby criticizes the far right because you don't personally agree with him?

Please remember to sign your comments as I do below!

Rosswikieditor (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor[reply]

Buckby was recently the campaign manager for Ann Marie Waters and a common associate of Tommy Robinson, two notable far-right figures - he has never once criticised them publically. He is currently banned from travelling to the USA because of his associations with the far-right. His attempt to rebrand himself as a 'moderate conservative' is evidently a cynical attempt to have this ban overturned.

He has criticised some violent factions of the far-right that have targetted him personally, but this does not mean he is a critic of the far-right.

Objectively, to political commentators, he is still a far-right figure.

2.25.195.68 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence he was banned from the USA for being far right? From what I have read it was from a fake tip to the FBI that he is a terrorist, which he evidently isn't otherwise he'd be in prison.

You cannot state a personal opinion and then call it objective.

I have read his book and he criticizes the far-right extensively. The only thing I've seen far-right commentators say about Jack is that he is Jewish and a sell-out.

Buckby criticizes the far right on his website, in his book, in articles, and in interviews. This makes him a critic of the far right.

Again, I would encourage you to try and remove yourself from this emotionally and look at it merely as a factual issue. I voted Liberal Democrat in the last election, and voted to remain in the European Union! And my wife's family is from Pakistan. I am looking at this objectively because that is the point of Wikipedia.

It seems that talking to you isn't very constructive as you seem to want to remove any reference of Buckby's criticism of the far right from this page so I have escalated this matter. I wish you all the best!

Rosswikieditor (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor[reply]

Buckby has asserted that he is banned from the USA because of a fake-tip but he has no evidence of this being fake. Juliet Jeske conducted an investigation into the Proud Boys and notified the FBI of their activities. At the time of her doing this, Jack was the editor of the Proud Boys UK magazine; where is the fake tip?

He crowdfunded for a lawsuit against the US government but has withdrawn it. It is strange that he tries to keep this quiet and still asserts that he has/is suing the government, why? He hasn't sued the government? He has no open litigation with the US government.

I'm sorry, but no mainstream media outlet will touch Buckby since he doesn't even know how to define what the far-left or far-right are. He is part of the far-right. On his website, in his book, articles and interviews he fundamentally misunderstands what the far-left and the far-right are objectively - he has not been on any mainstream news outlet because of this. He would get called out on it immediately.

I am really not interested in your life story and the fact that you voted lib dem or have a Pakistani wife is irrelevant to being an authority on Jack Buckby, it's embarrassing that you would think that matters.

2.25.195.68 (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you sharing your personal opinion. All the best.

(By the way - lawsuits get withdrawn when the person suing achieves what they set out to achieve. In this instance, it looks to have been to force the US government to make a decision on his visa. If the suit was withdrawn it will be because the decision was made - you can see that in the sources published on the wiki page!)

Rosswikieditor (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor[reply]

Evidently not my personal opinion as Buckby's wikipedia page remains as it is =) just how much is he paying you?

2.25.195.68 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is against the rules to edit war. I have escalated it and it's being discussed on BLPR. By the way, it is not good practice to be so confrontational and rude on Wikipedia. This is about truth, not personal opinions or grievances. Also, I am paid by nobody. I am interested in learning wikipedia and this is the page I use to learn. I wish you all the best. Rosswikieditor (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor[reply]

Wow. Do try and learn the definition of far-right and far-left before trying to learn how to edit a wikipedia biography about a far-right figure. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jackbuckby.co.uk/2020/02/28/the-futile-crackdown-on-the-far-right-is-creating-terrorists/ Where in this article does Buckby cite any credible research on why young people join the far-right? He blames along with politicians, the media and an emboldened 'far-left'.

Firstly, for the majority of Buckby's life, the Conservatives have been in power in the UK, and the Labour party of 97-2010 were very much influenced by Thatcher. Hardly an example of the 'far-left' dominating.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of media in the UK is conservative and anti-left wing. Another strawman argument he has created.

Thirdly, there's never been an emboldened 'far-left' threat in his life anywhere in the West. What he considers the far-left is mainstream liberal politics. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for no longer vandalising the page with unfounded claims. I am glad that you have realised that Wikipedia is not the place for opinions or emotion but instead is a place for verifiable facts only. I hope that you continue to practise your editing on Wikipedia on a page that you are perhaps more knowledgable of; you seemed to be okay at the editing aspect!

All the best :) 2.25.195.68 (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ross, just thought I'd get you to check out Buckby's racist takes on twitter regarding the situation in the US right now if you need further proof he is still a part of the far-right. Thank you for going another day without vandalising, keep it up, you're finally getting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.195.68 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

I sent you a warning but I see that you invited the other editors to the talk page so I have removed it. However, just because the other editors' ignore you attempts to communicate, that doesn't mean you can violate WP:3RR. The proper thing to do would be to report the other users at WP:EWN. Hillelfrei ^talk 14:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rosswikieditor. 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:

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! Hillelfrei ^talk 15:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

You have referred to a ban, what ban I see no record of one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a temporary one last month or something.

All I ever do is provide sources. Other people give their opinion and change the article I am interested in and they never get banned. Rosswikieditor (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosswikieditor, you have never been "banned" or blocked (unless you were hit by an IP block). It is not true to say that all you ever do is provide sources. It is true to say that all you ever do is promote Jack Buckby. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy please monitor this user’s vandalising the Jack Buckby page again. 95.148.249.214 (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No vandalism here. I just reverted it back to the state that this page has been in for the last year. Somebody reverted "right-wing" to "far-right" when a substantial amount of discussion resulted in the consensus that it is inaccurate to make that claim. The evidence shows that Buckby was previously involved with the far-right, and that sources used in this page pre-date his condemnation of the far-right. I am reverting back to a previously agreed consensus, and removing vandalism. Rosswikieditor (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might add the importance of not assuming malice of other editors. I am not a vandal! Rosswikieditor (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rosswikieditor, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ralbegen (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]