User talk:GalantFan

Hello @Dusti: I have already contacted Wiki admins. This is NOT an edit war on my part. And there is absolutely no consensus to be reached. The multiple anonymous IP edits are part of a concentrated attack on Wikipedia itself, to cause disrepute to Wikipedia, which have been organized and encouraged by some fool of a tutor at Robert Gordon University in the UK, who has been telling his students for several years that Wiki is an unreliable source and encouraging them to vandalize Wiki to prove it.

If you will follow the "contribs" links of these anonymous IPs, you will see that they all come from the same little area of the UK, and none of them have ever contributed anything but to vandalize this article by reposting the exact same fake information, over and over again for since 2012.

This Hannibal_Brooks page needs to be semi-protected against anonymous IP edits PERMANENTLY because this has been going on since 2012.

In summary, you have asked me to reach a consensus with people who are vandalizing Wikipedia with fictional info for sport. Lucy the Elephant was never anything but a fictional story and movie, and Olga the elephant never existed, and the Tom Wright who wrote the story and movie was never a POW. "Had a reply back from Wright's friend. He says that Wright was never a POW!"

As if vandalizing Wiki isn't bad enough, the vandals are even taking the extra step to claim that they are in the right, when they are publishing the same repeated unsourced fictional information over and over, which has been shown to be a deliberate act of vandalism. GalantFan (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dusti:Quora contributor admits that Olga the Elephant is a hoax to troll Wikipedia "Just to be clear the story of Olga the Elephant is fictional, the Tutor has this story in his opening lecture every year when going over how to reference research papers, with glee. Needless to say none of his students reference Wikipedia anymore, and everytime we see someone do so, we start giggling."^[1]

GalantFan (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind discussing the matter on the article talk page? That is, without reverting. It is your responsibility to build consensus for what you want. Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, have you noticed that there is extensive white washing on articles related to what Texas calls "revolution" and Mexico called "invasion"?

Those brave and noble federalists (law-breaking illegal immigrants) fought for freedom (to own slaves) and defense of property (slaves and stolen land) against that evil centralist dictator (lawfully elected president of the republic) Santa Anna (who freed the slaves and enforced immigration bans). LOL.GalantFan (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Common examples of weasel words

2+2 is considered 4

According to John, 2+2=4

John alleges that 2+2=4

2+2 is claimed to be 4

Some people say 2+2 is 4

GalantFan (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing (censorship)

Whitewashing is the act of glossing over or covering up vices, crimes or scandals or exonerating by means of a perfunctory investigation or biased presentation of data. GalantFan (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, GalantFan. As you saw, GreenCows has asked me to look at developments since the second ANI thread closed. Before I address the specifics, though, I'd like to zoom out a bit, if you'll humor me.

Wikipedia's coverage of recent history (read: anything that happened recently enough for us to write about it in real time) often sucks. People write the reported facts as they happen, and then never update them for years of subsequent reporting or academic commentary. I've noticed this firsthand about our Iraq War articles; my father died in the war, and our article on the relevant battle still mentions his death, 19 years later, in "has been reported" phrasing. So above all else I want to say here, Wikipedia needs editors who care about 2003 as much as 2022 or 1903, and I'm glad to see someone taking interest.

That's my general, bird's-eye view. Now, the problem with articles on recent history is the same with articles on current events, which is that people tend to have strong feelings on them. It's clear you have strong feelings here. That's not a bad thing in itself! Some of my proudest contributions to Wikipedia are on topics I have very strong feelings on, and strong feelings can motivate us to improve articles in ways that more detached editors may overlook. But strong feelings do of course create a challenge in content disputes.

Now, when I moderate content disputes, I make a point of not looking too hard at what exactly everyone's arguing, as long as none of it's grossly inappropriate. Because, inasmuch as I may take any administrative action, it doesn't matter whether I agree with you; my role is to judge user conduct, not decide who's right.

The first thing I see here is that everyone seems genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia. That's... Well it's a lot better than can be said for a lot of content disputes, that's for sure. The second thing I see is that the others in this dispute are listening to you. I don't see partisan stonewalling. I don't see anyone personally attacking you. I do see people quite on their guard about you by now, but I think that's a natural reaction to how you've behaved so far. Your comments—intensely worded, sometimes SHOUTING, on at least two occasions containing embedded graphic images—have served to raise the temperature in the discussion, and now you're seeing what happens in a high-temperature discussion. It's not pleasant.

I don't think it needs to be like that. I think if you can rein your tone in, this could be a pretty collegial exchange. Maybe I'm wrong, but we won't know if you don't try. And if you can't rein your tone in, then you should probably find something else to edit about, because if you continue to engage in a confrontational manner here, I or someone else will have to take adminstrative action.

And so this has to end with a warning—part a general warning that you need to seriously check your tone and focus on constructive dialogue, and part a more specific final warning that you need to stop talking about ancient history. We counsel editors in any content dispute to focus on the content, not the contributor. That's usually said in the context of comments about current contributors; it should go without saying that one should not spend time in a content dispute (or really anywhere) criticizing editors who have not edited in years. If you continue to argue over old diffs and inactive users, I will have to block you indefinitely for disruptive editing.

Which I don't want to do. I don't think anyone really wants to, since quite a few admins have had the chance to so far, and we've all held back even when it would have been within our discretion. You clearly care about making Wikipedia better, and it would be a shame to lose an editor's efforts because of issues on one article, especially one where constructive collaboration seems very possible. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin Bonadea Remember GreenCows?

GreenCows has been banned indefinitely, long history of sock puppets, POV, going on for over a decade

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LutonDi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LunaR%C3%A1pida

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WieBek%C3%A4mpfstDuAngst%3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VojvodinaabovetheDanube

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aquienleinterese

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%85%D8%B1_%D9%8A%D8%B6%D9%8A%D8%A1_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karsdorp85

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nettless

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AliDamouk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmuDahud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LionelMuniain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:88.104.60.143

All the way back in 2014

Deletion of text that puts the US in a negative light/ deletion of text that puts US enemies in good light

claiming that existing version is POV

Despite that warning, Stumink has edited logged out on 16, 17, and 20 December, despite editing with his main account on all of those days. All of the edits in question were shifting the POV of an article, making the avoidance of scrutiny much more of a problem. How much more slack are we going cut this user? asked Vanamonde way back in 2017.

I am 99% sure Green547 was another of his MANY sock puppets. Same patterns, same accusations of POV and "undue" against others while making POV edits and gutting articles of content that he finds unflattering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Green547

He came on here revert warring with me, accusing me of POV while he made pro-America POV edits across hundreds of articles, mostly military and war related.

Being provocative and making frivolous ANI complaints. Accusing me of being disruptive while he edit wars and revert wars against me. Accusing me of battleground behavior while he is a one-man army!

I added details and references and he revert warred me claiming "undue" and harassing with all sorts of accusations. He even accused me of being a sock puppet, while he has at least a dozen confirmed accounts and probably a lot more. GalantFan (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why I've been pinged here. GalantFan, I do not have the time to investigate your behavior and see if Stumink's behavior was exculpatory; but I will note for any passing admin that I would personally be inclined to give an editor in a dispute leeway if that dispute was entirely with socks of Stumink, who is a prolific sockmaster and inveterate POV-pusher. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your service! Much appreciated! GalantFan (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)