User talk:Soibangla

Hello Soibangla. The mediaite reference ^[1] refuting Stephanie's Op-ed ^[2] takes the Stephanie Grisham's Op-Ed out of context and steers away from the actual point. Stephanie Grisham's Op-Ed is specifically about how White House provided the Washington Post reporters with a list, the Post article ignored most of them--including the Veterans' loan forgiveness program and the walk across the DMZ. They do not claim that the Washington Post never reported on those events at all. They claim that the posts article on Trump's (lack of accomplishments) ignored a lot of his accomplishments. Happy to discuss this more. Rtarizona (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The op-ed states the White House proudly provided it with a detailed list of the administration’s 26 most important successes. Note they did not provide the list in the op-ed. The Trump White House has a fascinating tendency to characterize as "successes" what objective observers would not interpret that way, and that's why they aren't reported, because journalists aren't the president's gullible shills. The White House is spinning, and the press ain't buyin' it. Meanwhile, the op-ed provides a handful of examples of what they claim the Post didn't report, but Mediaite links to Post articles reporting about each of them. And, quite hilariously, the op-ed actually links to a Post article about something Grisham/Gidley said the Post didn't report. Oops. soibangla (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@soibangla Thank you for your response. Agree that Stephanie Grisham could have provided the list in her Op-Ed. In fairness and to see this objectively, in the Op-Ed Grisham talks specifically about The Washington Post Report^[3] "Trump's lost summer" - How the WaPo authors skipped many things including the DMZ story, which Washington Post had originally reported on. Grisham's op-ed has the link to the WaPo DMZ story to make the case that Washington Post had originally reported on the DMZ story but then choose to not include the DMZ story in the "Trump's lost summer" report. Coming back to my original request to not refer the mediate link in this wiki article - my point is that mediate article doesn't refute Grisham's Op-Ed on factual merit instead commits a straw-man fallacy by making it sound like as if in the Op-Ed Grisham is talking about WaPo not covering Trump stories over the summer, which is not the case.Rtarizona (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Grisham/Gidley use sleight of hand to suggest that the Post’s “lost summer” article should have been some sort of recital of Trump accomplishments, to suggest that the Post ignored important stories, but that was not the purpose of the article. Other articles might be lists of stuff, but this one wasn’t. The fact is the Post did report the stories Grisham/Gidley said the Post didn’t, just not in that particular article they didn’t like. soibangla (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 11:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: On what basis do you send me this? soibangla (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

On the basis you are editing relevant high profile articles - anyone editing in both American politics and BLPs should have both, really. I'm not clear why you are asking me about this when you normally just remove alerts without a comment, so far as I can see. Remember it's just an alert. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Are you suggesting there is a problem with my BLP edits? soibangla (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I am aware that some partisan editors use this alert in an attempt to intimidate others into silence. Unless you have a specific complaint about my edits, I suggest you refrain from sending generic alerts without cause soibangla (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion about your edits. I haven't even looked to see if you are pro or anti-Trump, for instance. If I had a specific complaint I'd have made it. No one should be intimidated into silence by an alert which explicitly says it doesn't imply any problems. I helped write some of these sanctions when I was an Arbitrator and was involved in changing the wording later so they would make it explicit that they were "standard messages" and didn't imply any problems. Have I missed something or have you also asked the same question when given the AP and gun control alerts? Doug Weller talk 18:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest these alerts be used sparingly and only if a specific problem is evident. soibangla (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Generally they are given to fulfill the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness requirements. Pretty much everyone in the topic area gets them. PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That's correct. A number of experienced editors worked hard to make sure the alert did not suggest that there was evidence of a specific problem. They should be given widely, else they might be seen as suggesting a problem or being used for intimidation. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please consider changing the language to "This is a standard message periodically sent to all BLP editors..." Cheers. soibangla (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be a good addition to the template. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the warning include the words "Sent to you by an editor that knows more about these things than you because I suspect that your future edits may not meet Wikipedia's standards. There is nothing that you have done to make me suspect this, it is just a hunch." Gandydancer (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, your post here [] contains both polimic and material that sure looks like a personal attack, "I only have a problem with liars. And in this case, the liars are particularly well organized and particularly aggressive, and they are hellbent on foisting their false agenda everywhere, including here. " You, North8000, and myself are the only involved editors so it would be very easy to assume you are calling me a liar. If you don't remove the comment I will take it to ANI. Springee (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Springee I did not call you or the other editor a liar. soibangla (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Then who are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 16:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I am referring in generic terms to organized groups, to which I did not associate either of the two editors. Note my reference to the gun lobby. Also note my references to "they," rather than to "you." soibangla (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You said "including here." That's pretty direct and unambiguous. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is neither direct nor unambiguous, and your previous tone toward me should disqualify you from this matter. soibangla (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Given your accusations of bad faith directed at other editors when your edits are questioned I think this falls into one of two buckets. Either you did mean this as a personal attack or you don't understand why a reasonable editor would see it as such. If the latter is true then this is a question of competency. Either way, it is a violation of WP:POLEMIC. Delete the statement or expect to defend your behavior at ANI. Springee (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit implies a direct correlation between Grassley's op-ed and Trump's rollback of tariffs. The NY Times article does not; it refers to pressure from Republicans - it does not draw a 1:1 relationship between Grassley's op-ed and Trump's actions. It's synthesis. Anastrophe (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Anastrophe I added language to connect the dots soibangla (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Dramatically better. Thank you very much!! Anastrophe (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Soibangla. This edit restored text that you introduced recently and that I reverted. It must be discussed first. Please self-revert and seek consensus. — JFG ^talk 20:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

JFG As I mentioned in my edit summary, you did not provide an explanation for your reversion other than some "Procedural removal," but referred to Talk:Donald_Trump#Reversion_explanation, though this particular edit is separate from MONGO's previous edit predicated on BRD, so it has nothing to do with Talk:Donald_Trump#Reversion_explanation. soibangla (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Procedural or not, JFG removed it here...and you restored it. JFGs removal appears to be the BRD and you need consensus to restore. I suggest you remove it and post an Rfd and gain concensus.--MONGO (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

JFGs removal appears to be the BRD is clearly false. You invoked BRD for your revert, and I challenge your rationale unless you can explain precisely why the edit was BOLD rather than, say, WP:IREALLYDONTLIKEIT soibangla (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I did not remove your newer content by mistake. My revert included BOTH the bit that has been edit-warred over by several editors (procedural revert), AND the bit that you added later (normal BRD revert). I should have made two separate reverts to make it clear this was my intent. Now please move to the discussion page, on which I have opened a section to discuss the merits of your additions. Again, I have not yet formed an opinion on your proposed content, and I'm waiting for you and other people to make their case. The most important part of BRD is Discuss. — JFG ^talk 06:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, you've asserted several times on the talk page that your edit was not BOLD and that the rationale for reversion was procedural BRD. These are both false. Your edit was reverted because people thought it was WP:UNDUE, and your edit was BOLD because it was the first edit in the BRD cycle...the edit that changed the status quo. You need to stop trying to make this be about process and start addressing the actual concerns of the people who reverted the edit. For example, since the main concern is that the addition is UNDUE, you might start by finding a way to word the addition that gives it less WEIGHT or by providing more sources that are more explicit about this is a major/important thing and not just the news of the day, to be forgotten tomorrow. ~Awilley (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: I fundamentally disagree based on WP:BRD-NOT:

• BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
• BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. soibangla (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of the 3 bullet points above, but don't see how they relate to the current situation. Could you maybe be more specific about what you fundamentally disagree with? Are you disputing that this was a bold addition of new material, or are you claiming that WP:UNDUE (policy) was not the rationale for this revert? ~Awilley (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was not BOLD, and UNDUE was not a reasonable rationale for the revert. If R in BRD means "revert," what does BRD is never a reason for reverting in WP:BRD-NOT mean? The individual who reverted has not been shy about expressing his/her strong political persuasions. The real reason for the revert was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that was not my real reason. I further explained my reasoning on the article talkpage. I did however omit in my latest comments there that I am strongly opposed due to recentism issues and prognostications including what people think the future holds, see WP:SPECULATION.--MONGO (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As I explained to you, CNBC used actual data, as the source states. They are not speculating. soibangla (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO: Given your frequent and open expressions of your strongly-held political views on various Talk pages, I find it challenging to AGF in your actions. soibangla (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not the only editor that has reverted and or expressed disagreement with the edit(s) in question that you performed. I still suggest you post an Rfc at the Trump talkpage and gain concensus for your edit.--MONGO (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Your buddy JFG says "all" edits are BOLD by definition. I strenuously disagree, in general and most certainly in this specific instance. Many editors have noted that the other individual who voiced disagreement is often nearly incomprehensible in their arguments, and in this specific case s/he insisted that I talk to you about the factual basis of the edit, which I pointed out I already had. Twice. And now there is a discussion underway about "tag-team reversions." Oh the irony. And you just made a bogus accusation that I was cherrypicking, when in fact it was you who was clearly cherrypicking. I call bullshit. soibangla (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

1) I am not MONGO's or anyone's "buddy". 2) There's a talk page thread to discuss the impact of Trump tariffs on U.S. consumers. Please go discuss there. 3) You still have not self-reverted this, and that's still a rule violation, irrespective of whether the content has merit. I might even support it, but the WP:ONUS is on you to obtain consensus. — JFG ^talk 22:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you continue to assert that all edits are BOLD? Your interpretation of the BRD does not actually support it. It simply says that BOLD edits happen, not that all edits are BOLD. And it didn't happen here. The edit was not BOLD, it was not UNDUE. It's simply information that causes some to experience extreme cognitive dissonance. That's all it is. And that's why others restored it, because they saw the reversion for the bullshit it really was. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a buddy! Hallelujah! I do not know who the "incomprehensible" editor is, perhaps you'd like to insult them more publicly. The fact you only included one part of Kudlow's comments on the tariff issue is pure Confirmation bias and is textbook Cherry picking of a RS on your part. To show why I meant this is better placed in a daughter article so we can follow WP:SS I did not remove the same addition from the Presidency of Donald Trump article where you had placed the same one sided content, but instead added an expansion to help maintain neutrality here and I used the same source you had.--MONGO (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

you only included one part of Kudlow's comments on the tariff issue What a total load. You cherrypicked to omit what he said. My edit was faithful to what he actually said. soibangla (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"faithful" to part of what he said...you omitted the rest, but I added it to the article where it is better suited. I'm done here.--MONGO (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Your reading of what he said is incorrect. Period. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla, Re: "it was not BOLD". We're not talking about the dictionary definition of "Bold" (i.e. confident, courageous, daring, etc.), we're talking about the Wikipedia definition, which is basically "any edit changes the status quo". A WP:BOLD edit is not a bad thing that needs to be reverted, it's a good thing, and it's how the encyclopedia gets written. Every BOLD edit has the potential to start a BRD cycle if it is reverted, but most BOLD edits go unchallenged and go on to become the new status quo. Please accept this and move on. Everybody else gets it. ~Awilley (talk)

@Awilley: I do not see the words "status quo" on either WP:BRD or WP:BOLD page. "Any edit that changes the status quo" would include any edit, including simple punctuation. Are you saying that any edit can be challenged as BOLD? If every edit can be considered BOLD, Wikipedia would descend into a mayhem of reversions and endless Talk and the whole show would come to a screeching halt. I'm pretty sure "Everybody else gets it" that BOLD does, in fact, mean "confident, courageous, daring, etc," hence the reason it can be used as justification for reversion. And in this case, my edit was not BOLD. It simply wasn't. And again, I ask: why does WP:BRD-NOT state BRD is never a reason for reverting? This seems inherently contradictory. I submit that this policy is profoundly ambiguous, and ambiguity can be exploited to GAME, as I maintain is what has happened in this case. soibangla (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, I don't know why you're getting so hung up on BOLD. "Are you saying that any edit can be challenged as BOLD?" No. I'm saying any edit can be challenged, period. Forget BOLD. There's no contradiction. Any edit, including simple punctuation, can be challenged, but "BRD" itself, as you pointed out numerous times, isn't a valid reason for challenging. BRD is just a roadmap for what to do when an edit is challenged. Take a minute and read the "active arbitration remedy" at the top of the Donald Trump talk page. It says, "Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours...before reinstating your edit." That's any edit. It doesn't say "if a BOLD edit you make is challenged." ~Awilley (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Awilley So why does "Enforced BRD" mean any edit when BRD literally means Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Why doesn't the banner simply say "any edit" without reference to BRD? So it's BRD but actually it's not? And below you said I "made a bold edit that was reverted." Why call it bold, if any edit can be reverted? soibangla (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG, Re: "You still have not self-reverted this, and that's still a rule violation" That's not a rule violation, JFG, and you know it. Soibangla, despite not seeming to have a clue about what BRD means, is following the BRD cycle to the letter. They made a bold edit that was reverted, they discussed that on the talk page, and then they made a new edit that only added back half of the material that was removed. (They left out the bit about the tariffs being equal to a tax increase.) That's how BRD is supposed to work. ~Awilley (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to split hairs here, but Soibangla did not discuss the merits of the part they left in the article, and has instead resorted to personal attacks against editors who disagree with him/her. Not cool. I don't even care about this content, but I do care about civility, good faith, and process. — JFG ^talk 23:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: added back half of the material that was removed is inaccurate. It was a wholly separate, second edit, then JFG reverted the whole shebang as though the second edit was subject to the same reversion justification as the first edit. Can you see how I don't see this as fair play? soibangla (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla, yes, I see that now. I had missed it before. So technically that once sentence should not have been part of the "procedural revert", but it's also understandable that JFG removed the whole paragraph. I also see now that JFG was correct in saying that you are in violation of the BRD sanction. You added material, JFG challenged it by reversion, and you added it back without waiting the required 24 hours. Although the revert was only 45 minutes from the 24-hr mark, close enough that asking you to self-revert or placing a sanction would be more punitive than preventative. I've stricken my incorrect comment to JFG above (sorry JFG, my bad). ~Awilley (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Awilley it's also understandable that JFG removed the whole paragraph Welp, I disagree because should not have been part of the "procedural revert". I suggest this whole BOLD and BRD thing needs some serious rethinking, it's ambiguous and contradictory, and I really don't think it's because it's my not seeming to have a clue (was that really necessary?). That's all I got. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Do you continue to assert that you merely fixed the formatting of my citation on Crossfire Hurricane, rather than fully reverted it unnecessarily, as you actually did? Do you agree with MONGO that I cherrypicked what Kudlow said in my edit, when in reality he cherrypicked? I am finding it increasing difficult to AGF with you guys, so I suggest you act in ways to induce me to and then we can all get along just fine. soibangla (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: fixed the formatting of my citation on Crossfire Hurricane, which diff are you talking about? Re:Kudlow, MONGO's version is more neutral, as it reflects that Kudlow stated both that tariffs have a moderate negative effect on GDP, and that this is a risk worth taking in comparison to other expected benefits on trade balance and domestic jobs. — JFG ^talk 01:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not getting the diff, you know what went down. As I stated in the edit, it is a "small or moderately negative effect," and the full context of the edit is that Trump says "up" while everyone else, including Kudlow, says "down." That's the whole point, and my edit was faithful to it. And if anyone wanted to enhance the language to their better liking, that would be the preferred option rather than make a wholesale delete. We're here to collaborate, right? soibangla (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, and enhance the language to their better liking is exactly what MONGO did (on the economic policy page, not on the Trump biography page). On your first point, I sincerely don't "know what went down". I edit a lot, you too, I don't remember each and every thing I've ever typed. If you have a concern, show me the diffs of what happened. Otherwise, case closed. — JFG ^talk 02:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

JFG exactly what MONGO did on the economic policy page Nope. And why didn't he do it on Donald Trump? soibangla (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was on the presidency page, and MONGO has already explained his rationale: he considers this analysis undue weight for the main Trump biography, and speculation to boot. — JFG ^talk 02:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, it's UNDUE and will add CRYSTALBALL. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

First, Thank you for your contributions!

Second, reFill 2 doesn't seems to work well. X1\ (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it appears to do more harm than good, and I try to keep an eye out for that. Mostly I use it rather than the original reFill when I cite a WaPo ref, because reFill doesn't handle them right. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

At Donald Trump, at least, as long as I'm around it, you could save yourself the effort of using any script, since none of them comes close to the high standard established for that article. You could just drop in a bare URL within ref tags and I'll see to the full cite usually within 48 hours. On the other hand, the status quo works too, if you prefer it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

reFill continuing to leave errors. X1\ (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to voice a complaint about reFill 2's inappropriate use of |via=, but I don't know where to do that (scripts generally give you a link in their edit summaries). I don't see it listed at Wikipedia:User scripts/List. Do you have any idea where to go? Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss and Soibangla; check out this example of reFill 2 junk, too. X1\ (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This is why widely-used citation scripts should be vetted by the community. Barring that, editors who choose to use them should clean up after them rather than creating work for other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If either of you find a way to help correct this continuing and increasing problem, please tell me too. X1\ (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

X1\ Mandruss I'm inclined to stop using the currently available tools altogether and just leave bare URLs. I sure wish someone could write "RefBot" to uniformly format refs sitewide so no one has to deal with this anymore. cc: BullRangifer soibangla (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

soibangla, I have been think along those lines also. X1\ (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have pinged you to my talk page so we can deal with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd like to be done with the matter. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping we can do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi soibangla. When you add content to article leads as you did here , can you please also add them to the article body? The WP:LEAD is meant to summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, so by not adding your content to the body too, the lead is not acting as a summary. Also, if people cut your content in the lead, it would be totally gone from the article. Can you see what I did to improve the article? . It's just one more step. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Soibangla! I agreed with your comment, at a recent RfD, that the redirect "Investigate the investigators" was bad because it targeted the Mueller Report, where it isn't mentioned and which it has nothing to do with. So I changed the target to William Barr#Origins of the Russia investigation. Do you agree with that? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making comments like this and this on article talk pages. ~Awilley (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: Please refrain from calling me "clueless" for raising legitimate questions about an ambiguous policy. soibangla (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Awilley (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, I've also tried to engage with MarkBassett on article talk pages and I know how mindnumbingly frustrating it can be (I was warned ages by an admin for questioning his competence). Just try to be as level-headed and robotic as you can. You do good edits, so don't get yourself blocked for outbursts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, can you undo your last revert? The edit I did was mostly to cut down on the unnecessary amount of references. I don't mind if you want to add back "persistently", or I can do that if you prefer. I just don't want to revert the article myself because of 1RR. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

OnetwothreeipWell, if it says persistently, don't we need to show that with multiple refs? soibangla (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, one reference would have to be enough to show if that's the case. Otherwise it would be inappropriately synthesis for us to say that four or five examples constituted persistently. That's something reliable sources have to say themselves, we can't infer that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, because we properly have 8 refs to support that Trump "repeatedly and falsely" asserts his economy is the best in history. If we use just one ref, some other editor is bound to say, "hey, that's just one ref saying that!" soibangla (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That is also far too many references, when one or two solid references would be enough. This is why we have Wikipedia:Citation overkill. The rule of thumb is one reference per each fact that could be contested, so definitely "just one ref saying that" is a nonsense argument for someone to make. We can address those issues when we get there though, for now I'm happy to restore the word "persistently" as long as have just one source that makes that case. We can't use the existence of multiple sources as evidence of anything itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip Well, I'm still not persuaded in these particular cases, but feel free to add back persistently. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that made my day. And it reminds me of Battle Chess. —PaleoNeonate – 19:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm however I fail to find any mention of derangement there... —PaleoNeonate – 19:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You're in the Kremlin's sights. R2 (bleep) 19:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

LOL! soibangla (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, when you add items to Presidency of Donald Trump, could you be far more concise in your writing, and limit the sourcing to as few sources as you need? The page suffers from serious size problems, so any overly wordy content is likely to be trimmed or removed entirely, and editors can credibly claim that important items are not important enough to include, which is sometimes a shame (because those items are important). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans Please would you provide an example of me "overdoing it?" soibangla (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=901743453&oldid=901705201 . Four sources don't seem necessary here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I diligently strive for concision, and I don't have perfect recall here, but I seem to remember that one needed multiple sources for some reason. I assure you I am not in the habit of overciting. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

These are just helpful pointers to make sure that the content you add will be kept in articles. If it's too verbose and has too many sources, the chances increase that it will be cut from that article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I diligently strive for concision. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of concision, I've seen onetwothree's edits as a good faith attempt at that, nothing more. You are welcome to criticize the substantive details of the edits, explain the problems you see, propose alternate wordings, etc., but accusations of bad faith like this are not helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"nothing more?" I strenuously disagree. soibangla (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. ~Awilley (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you say that raising an issue in Talk, seeing the issue refuted, ignoring that refutation and pivoting to another issue, seeing that issue refuted, ignoring that refutation and pivoting to another issue, seeing that issue refuted, over and over, garnering no support for your position, then falling silent for a day or two, before reverting long-standing content without consensus, exemplifies good faith editing? soibangla (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If that's indeed what's going on, probably not, but edit summaries and article talk pages still aren't a good place to hash that out. I noticed that onetwothree has made another revert today and I've warned them. ~Awilley (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't insert your comments in the middle of other comments as you did twice here. That makes it impossible to see who said what, short of studying the page history. These instances have been corrected by the other editor.

To provide context for a reply I suggest {{tq}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's threaded, it efficiently makes it obvious who is responding to who, about specifically what. soibangla (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not really. Correct indentation per WP:THREAD is far from universal, so it's never a very reliable indicator of context or intent (which is not to say that we shouldn't do it!). Some editors even sometimes change their indent level within a single comment, for no apparent reason. Editors are accustomed to the idea that all text between successive signatures comprises a single comment from a single editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it's disruptive, esp when responding to long edits that cover multiple topics. soibangla (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't used the word "disruptive", although one might if you did it more often. At this point I would soften to "confusing". I think the cost exceeds the benefit, considering the acceptable alternatives, and I'm fairly confident that a majority of experienced editors would agree. If you remain unconvinced, by all means keep doing it and see if you get any more complaints (you already have two, from me and that other editor by virtue of their refactoring). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Talk) pages are clunky and inefficient, trying to reuse the generic page editing approach for a multithreaded discussion. It may be possible to use it effectively, but it is very difficult to discover how to do so. (Discussion forums might be a better way to talk about articles and their content.) soibangla (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, see the fourth paragraph at WP:TPO. I was aware of some discussion a couple of years ago (and probably participated a little), but I didn't know it resulted in an addition to the guideline. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for self-reverting. It won't be necessary to revert the change I made tomorrow either. I've read your edit summary and this can be solved by removing the specific 28-month time frame for the statement and leaving this as a statement that applies generally to his time in office. I would be grateful if in the future you brought these objections to my attention before reverting so that I can identify these issues and find the reasonable solution. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip I intend to restore it tomorrow to show that his assertions have extended well into his second year, not just through Sep 2018. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't say that he makes the statements until September 2018, it just says that he generally does. The reference just happens to be published then and it's not as if we're saying these statements by him stopped afterwards, nor is there any implication of that. We obviously don't need a reference every month when we have one reference reporting that he states these repeatedly anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Here. This indicates you're doing good work. Keep it up! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

haha, thanks for that. I am also "a known quantity" to Putin. soibangla (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The DNC may be claiming that they received a forensic image of the DNC hardware but the Mueller Report says nothing about a forensic image analyzed by the FBI. It only repeats statements made by the DNC and Crowdstrike:

Days after the June 9 meeting, on June 14, 2016, a cybersecurity firm [Crowdstrike] and the DNC announced that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the DNC and obtained access to opposition research on candidate Trump, among other documents.

Mueller explicitly stated that no forensic image was given to the FBI for examination, only a redacted preliminary report made by Crowdstrike. The DNC source you quote either misspoke or is lying. 8675309 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

8675309: Mueller Report, page 40: "As part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." soibangla (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@8675309: you are violating Wikipedia:BRD by not discussing this at Talk:List of conspiracy theories instead of editor's personal Talk pages. X1\ (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Earlier I quoted Mueller. I meant Comey. Sorry for the confusion. The Mueller Report cites the "Netyksho Indictment ¶¶ 28-29" as the source for the "FBI later received images of DNC servers...". That document says nothing about the DNC giving up forensic images of its servers. According to this: ^[1] the FBI asked for forensic copies but received none. Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) asked Comey during a congressional hearing about the forensic images:

BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate — did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?

COMEY: In the case of the DNC, … we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn’t get direct access.

BURR: But no content?

COMEY: Correct.

BURR: Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?

COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks — the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.

On March 20, 2017 during a House Intelligence Committee hearing and while he was still FBI director, Comey evidenced some considerable discomfort as he tried to explain to the committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the DNC computers and do its own forensics:

HURD: So there was about a year between the FBI’s first notification of some potential problems with the DNC network and then that information getting on — getting on Wikileaks.

COMEY: Yes, sir.

HURD: …when did the DNC provide access for — to the FBI for your technical folks to review what happened?

COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system. …

HURD: …So, Director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaksand when — youhave still been — never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were — that were hacked by the Russians.

According to Federal Court documents, Crowdstrike does not have forensic images or any evidence of a DNC hack. ^[2] Under the Rule of Discovery, Stone's attorneys received only redacted drafts of the Crowdstrike forensic report. There is no "Chain of Evidence" here, only redacted drafts. 8675309 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

8675309, take it to the relevant Talk page so everyone can scutinize it soibangla (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf Mueller Report, page 40: "As part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." The Mueller Report cites its source as [Netyksho Indictment ¶¶ 28-29]. That court document does not say anything about "images" or "FBI" or "traffic logs".8675309 (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

8675309, Please stop talking to me here. Take it to the article Talk page. soibangla (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You initially responded to my posting here. Why did you attempt to rebut my information here on your talk page if it's not allowed? 8675309 (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

8675309, keep your discussion regarding Wikipedia content only at appropriate Talk pages, in this case only at Talk:List of conspiracy theories. Other editors may not see your comments if you don't. It appears you are singling-out editors and not focusing on improving Wikipedia, i.e. WP:NOTHERE. Stay on content Talk pages, it is there were discussion is consolidated. X1\ (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that I am being singled out and attacked on my talk and elsewhere. I am only trying to improve Wikipedia but apparently others prefer the status quo.8675309 (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You're not being "singled out". This is what we do with everyone who adds poorly sourced contentious material to articles. Guy (help!) 13:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I had you down as oppose in the summary, and clarified the result to show Oppose/keep is that OK?? RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, I oppose your proposed addition. soibangla (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

thanks, I got that, I had you in the list of people that opposed when I closed the discussion :) regards RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bender235 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you ask an uninvolved Admin to review the close and its revert. Whatever is going on with this editor, he's just informed us that it is not going to end without some guidance from an Admin. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

Hello, here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area. Enjoy! ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, for anyone looking for dirt on me:

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

soibangla (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair that is just MastCell though, so take that for what it is worth.^[FBDB] PackMecEng (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Read the thread. After all that concocted drama, Ad Orientem walked away with nuthin'. I didn't even have to say a word. LOL! soibangla (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Soibangla - would you do us all a favor and provide full reference citations, not bare links, when you add something to an article? At the Michael Cohen article I have been cleaning up references added by IPs, but I didn’t expect to have to do it with an established editor like you. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, you may recall that I long reflexively used reFill/Reflinks with each edit, but a certain editor pestered me about the fact that sometimes those tools malfunction and I moved on without noticing it, so I gave up on it. I will resume doing it and show this thread to anyone who subsequently complains. If the tools are not reliable, they need to be revisited. I'm also unclear as to how some editors appear able to fix the refs without apparently running those tools, as far as I can tell. Ideally, a bot should be built to roam the site and do this automatically. soibangla (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, the standard editor window has a "Cite" menu. Look at Templates. Under there you will see cite web, cite news etc. It's not quite has handy as a auto complete bot but it allows you to reliably fill in the information. Springee (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice if a bot would clean these up but I'm not aware of one. I do it semi-manually, using the "cite" link at the edit window. Anyhow, thanks for saying you will provide full references, and you can blame me if anyone complains. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I will use reFill/Reflinks and revert it if it appears mangled, but manually filling out forms to do it is a bit much. I'm very surprised that WP has existed this long without someone botifying this task. soibangla (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You used reFill for three refs here, and two of the refs came out fine but one was totally thrashed. Who runs reFill? Is there anyone in charge? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I'll fix it. No extra charge. I appreciate your making the effort. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I've already reverted once today (a mundane maintenance edit, but still), so I don't want to touch this myself just yet. However, it seems to me that removing the summary take of the cited source is not the right way to go. Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like MelanieN beat me there. soibangla (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN! XOR'easter (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor "Trying to reconnect" was blocked for sockpuppetry. I believe the editor reverted you on several pages. You can go ahead and restore the edits that this user held up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Recently you undid a change I made where I used the New York Post and Fox News. You called them unreliable. Could you explain how international/national news outlets are "unreliable"? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip See article Talk page soibangla (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

When something says "DO NOT MODIFY" it means you don't edit it. 2 time you have stepped over the protocol. Please refrain from editing a close discussion. If you want to discuss it more, please start a new discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for this major change. soibangla (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The vote was over 24 hours and the topic was in the news. What is truly "Consensus". The topic of a "Joe Biden - Ukraine conspiracy" has been in international news (And 3 things listed on the Portal:Current events) over the past 24 hours. Also the notice of the split was up on the article during the entire "NY Post" problem yesterday. If any other editors wanted to put their vote, they had the chance and the notice. I even made a comment about moving it without an oppose 4 hours before the split. No other comments. I determined consensus based on all that. At this point with all the extra edits done to the new article, it was worth it to go ahead and split. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As you have edited the article, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, I am alerting you to a vote. You can vote Here. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

FBI, DOJ agree Hunter Biden emails were not Russia disinformation https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-doj-agree-hunter-biden-225219943.html

Please stop posting disinformation. 208.88.4.211 (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@208.88.4.211: That's a Yahoo news-aggregation link to a Fox video. Fox is not considered generally reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for political topics and this is definitely political. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this the sanction on the article requires you to wait 24 hours and discuss your edit on the talk page before reinstating it. (From what I can see you did neither.) I do appreciate that you modified your edit based on Mandruss's objections, but you should have waited 24 hours first. Otherwise you're just bulldozing over the other editor who is also subject to the same restrictions and can't re-revert your edit if they still disagree. ~Awilley (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not you too Bill Barr you incredible bias lefty. I am beginning to wonder just where exactly any last vestiges of "evidence" is coming from. Koncorde (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Firestar464 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Firestar464 I am fascinated that you find my conduct improper but not the conduct of the other editor. If you're gonna inject yourself into this, the least you could've done was to restore my content which the other editor improperly removed. Reverting someone's article edits is commonly acceptable, but removing someone's Talk edits rarely is. It is exceptionally improper and makes it very difficult to AGF. soibangla (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. I will look into it. In the meantime, please read WP:KETTLE. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Firestar464, I submit you have confused reaction with action. The former would not have happened without the latter. Removing someone's Talk comments is a provocative act. soibangla (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I know that very well. Now, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and you should not respond in kind. Simply revert their edit, warn them about it, and move on. Firestar464 (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That's what I did. soibangla (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the article is under the consensus required DS. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, in case you want to chip in. All best, Zazpot (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you just delete archived urls from a bunch of sources? ...why? RexSueciae (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No idea what happened there, I'll undo soibangla (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it was already done soibangla (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the mention I added of them criticizing media coverage of the riots. I know that their talk shows are unreliable for facts on politics, but RSP says that they can sometimes be used as sources for attributed opinions, which is how phrased their comments on the article, to make it clear that it was just their opinion. However, because it says "sometimes", I'm not sure if it is acceptable to use them as a source for opinion in this particular case. It would be nice if you could clarify why you think their use an opinion source in this particular instance is wrong. I would also like to clarify that I am not a fan of Fox News at all, so I don't exactly have a bias in adding them as a source. X-Editor (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

X-Editor, given RSP language, you raise a reasonable question that I think deserves a broader discussion on the article Talk page, and perhaps beyond. Fox News is reporting what their own paid employees are saying, people who work squarely and unambiguously on the opinion side of their organization, and who have for years consistemtly supported the Trump agenda during Fox News primetime. In this light, they are arguably (and I would argue strongly) "agents" of the larger Trump political operation, and as such should be excluded in this case. If you like, you may have the first word by starting a topic on this on the article Talk page, or if not, maybe I will in the next day or two (or...several? I dunno). soibangla (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, thanks for your response. I would prefer if you started the talk page discussion on the DC storming article since you were the one that deleted the Fox News content and brought up this issue in the first place. I also agree that the issue is interesting enough to warrant a bigger discussion as well. I'll be on the talk page of the DC Storming article to discuss the issue if you decide to create a discussion surrounding this. I also noticed that the RSP language is vague on Fox News when it comes to sourcing it as opinion in politics and that the language should definitely be clarified, which in and of itself is worth an entirely different and bigger discussion on RSN, which I would suggest you set up as well. P.S. I don't really care too deeply what decision is made on this issue either. X-Editor (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

X-Editor, upon further thought, if your sole objective is to restore your content, BRD says you should initiate the article Talk discussion. That said, since we agree the RSP language may need clarification, either of us or anyone else can take it straight to RSN for resolution, though I think the best approach is to discuss on article Talk, see how that goes, then consider going to RSN from there. soibangla (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla My sole objective isn't to restore the content, it's to get consensus on this issue. I'll set up the talk page discussion on the article's talk page soon. X-Editor (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla: Yes, Fox News mostly supported Trump, but they called the election for Biden quite soon. Since then, Trump hasn't been happy with Fox News. See e.g. , . We should still be careful with opinions aired by Fox, but I don't think they must be completely excluded in this case. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, pardon the intrusion, but I've noticed you use reFill a lot. Do you use it from the webform or is there a script or something that one can use instead? I'm on Firefox on a Mac, and I'd say it works for me without stalling/timing out maybe half the time I try to use it, so I'm looking for a more reliable method. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I use the links under Tools in the left sidebar of articles, but yes, it stalls a lot. It sometimes seems to work more consistently after waiting a few seconds to allow the article page to fully load (that’s my theory, anyway) soibangla (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, the edits you did to Michael Ellis (Trump administration official) seem to have some citation errors. When you get the chance can you clean them up or, heck, tell me how to and I will. Cuz, you know, a person as careful and caring about his community as Mr. Ellis would do the same ;). Thanks. HighAtop94 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

HighAtop94, no worries, I'm not done yet. soibangla (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Please consider the section I have opened at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Refs in lead and 'Prior intelligence' section (Oath Keepers) and discuss this. I agree that the pre-Oath Keepers' pre-planning should be mentioned somehow from the first. Qexigator (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I saw your comment at Talk, and have seen your next edit and its removal, as recorded at the Talk section. I am minded to redo my earlier edit (additing a few words with the references), which I hope you would find more acceptable than nothing. Please reply at Talk, as before. Qexigator (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

idea #1: Insurrection at the United States Capitol (year inclusion discussed later)

idea #2: 2021* Insurrection at the United States Capitol

• year inclusion discussed later

idea #3: 2021 Insurrection at the United States Capitol AND/OR Insurrection at the United States Capitol

Maybe it's pointless, but maybe it's a good idea, what do you think? — Alalch Emis 02:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't fit the charges given out by the feds though. Can call it a riot. Ive seen no insurrection charges though. MisinformationFix (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Soibangla. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:TRUMPECON, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to have any more negative feeling between us, so I want to be completely clear. I am sorry for the blog and it was never intended to smear you. It was deleted a long time ago, so hopefully you can find it in your heart to forgive me and let us move on from the incident. If you really accept this apology, we can have almost like a re-do between us. Forget everything that happened in the past between us. I want to try becoming friendly towards all the other Wikipedians. So in short, will you forgive me? Elijahandskip (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a note: I was essentially deleting something I (originally) wrote (because I think the other guy put it better). But I don't feel strongly enough to revert your change at this time.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Soibangla. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "TRUMPECON".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia doesn't repeat gossip or nuttery like that, except in exceptional circumstances. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion and Moriori, perhaps the edit may have been better received had I done a better job of making clear the "speculation" was false. I thought that was evident, particularly given the reference. soibangla (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why you would add "speculation" to Wikipedia even if you explained it was false. Moriori (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Moriori and Acroterion, I honestly don't understand what the controversy is here. The edit simply described yet another false narrative spread by QAnon followers. Maybe the edit was inadequately explicit is that respect, but any suggestion of improper behavior is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

We need not repeat and effectively amplify every lunatic claim - we already know that the Clintons are major targets, we don't need to include every grossly offensive BLP-violating detail. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, are you saying I made a BLP vio? soibangla (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/7b7d698b9a660997f5e755d92b775d98

Please stop editing verified news MisinformationFix (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

MisinformationFix, source does not mention Clinton Foundation, nor does any other because it's false. soibangla (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph of the article

"Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee" MisinformationFix (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

MisinformationFix, campaign, not Foundation. soibangla (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing it back up now as this article verifies the Clinton Campaign was involved. Thanks. MisinformationFix (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

MisinformationFix, your edit is incorrect. Campaign, not Foundation soibangla (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, i'll change 1 word. Was that all you had a problem with? You removed my NYT and the other AP edit as well saying no Trump collusion. Or are you just going to edit anything you politically disagree with? MisinformationFix (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss this on article Talk first, not here. soibangla (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As someone I know is regularly active on the Ukraine articles; can you keep an eye on Burisma and Zlochevsky articles if you are around and / or add them to your watchlist. IP was adding lengthy attributed content to Hunters book with sizeable BLP implications. Big ol' WP:SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See this. I made a mistake first time as a US president is more notable for time in office than lifetime. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, I don't think your changes are necessary at all. soibangla (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:SDDATES. The Roosevelt dates were wrongly formatted in any case because you only use ccyy–yy for adjoining years, as for a football season. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, then please do it right. The way you did it was quite peculiar. soibangla (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The way I did it was as per SDDATES which specifies "[Office description] from startyear to endyear". Nothing "peculiar" about that at all. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, WP:SDFORMAT says keep it to 40 characters or less. Barack Obama is the only person who is the "44th president of the United States". There is no reason to add DOB or term of service in a short description. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Muboshgu. That's fair enough, given the length of the description, but dates are normally encouraged. As you say, the US president has an ordinal and so each one (except Cleveland, ha!) is unique. British prime ministers don't have an ordinal so they need the dates per SDDATES. I was tending to think in PM terms. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, but that's not the first way you did it. You used Obama's birth year and made it seem FDR became POTUS in 1882. soibangla (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Soibangla. As to your recent reversion to the William Barr edit @ 05:13, 31 May 2021, I am compelled to agree with LikkerdySplit. I believe that not only was there a problem with your position regarding WP:NPOV generally but, in particular, I submit that it violates WP:UNDUE. Also, I don’t believe the lead section conforms to MOS:LEAD in any event (I hope this may be corrected by someone in the future). Of course, please keep in mind WP:WAR. Kind regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Quaerens-veritatem, I see no reason to admonish me about edit warring on my Talk page. I disagree it is POV or UNDUE. soibangla (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you're a major contributor to the William Barr page. After looking over the article, I think that after some light touch-ups, you should totally nominate the page for a higher rating if you want. The page can certainly attain good article status or maybe even featured article status. Of course this is completely optional and only serves as a point of pride for yourself, so you don't have to if you don't want to.

I figured I'd put the onus on you though since it's generally not appropriate for someone who hasn't really contributed to the page, like myself, to nominate an article for higher rating. Curbon7 (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Curbon7, thanks for your comment, but I'm really not very good with such things. soibangla (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for this, since I've disputed its inclusion. Do you plan to do that? These "In [date], Carlson said [something controversial]" are usually always contentious and most often end up without consensus for inclusion once a larger group of editors has weighed in. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to say hi. Cwater1 (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC).

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Mark Milley. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! You reverted four of my edits, but not all of them were disputed. Please revert only where there is a dispute. Normchou ^💬 14:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You recently reverted an edit of mine removing material that was presented inaccurately through Synthesis. I changed the word 'conspiracy theorist' to 'conservative commentator' which in hindsight should be 'thought leader' on this sentence:

 In May 2021, Human Events announced that conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec had been hired as senior editor.

There is no source material that states Human Events hired him because he is a conspiracy theorist, to infer this is original research WP:OR. Of the three cited sources,there is this HE article that covers his hiring as a thought leader. You have a WP:GUNREL Daily Beast article that talks about him being hired at Turning Point USA,(No mention of Human events) and lastly a NYT articlethat has no relevance to Human Events hiring him. So why is it being used as a citation source in the Human events article?

The correct resolution is to remove the 'conspiracy theorist', replace it with 'Thought leader', plus remove the bogus unrelated articles. What do you think?

• Side-note,H:FIES has this to say about reverts.:

 'It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.'

MaximusEditor (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The edit doesn't say or imply Human Events hired him because he is a conspiracy theorist, it's just that he happens to be commonly described as a conspiracy theorist, which is consistent with his lead, which characterizes him as neither a "conservative commentator" nor a "thought leader." The Beast and NYT refs are there simply to show he has been characterized as a conspiracy theorist, not to support that HE had hired him, which their included statement makes clear. I concede my edit summary could've elaborated on that. soibangla (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about Human Events, which has no history of Conspiracy Theories. Yes, you are correct,the original edit does not imply "Conspiracy Theorist", it blatantly states "Conspiracy Theorist". There is no WP:RS that connects "Conspiracy Theory" with Human Events. So, this is problematic because exactly what you just described is WP:SYNTHESIS, Pulling from Posobiecs lead or not.(Which is a whole other problem on its own)

Here is what Wikipedia describes Synthesis as:

 "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"

• No source listed says "'conspiracy theorist' Jack Posobiec." The Source *DOES SAY " hiring of the extremely talented and influential Jack Posobiec"

 "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research"

• Also you have only one article that says he is a conspiracy theorist that is the WP:GUNREL Daily Beast Article, that third source, while coming from a WP:RS (LA TIMES), it doesnt actually call him a Conspiracy theorist anywhere (unless you account the WP:HEADLINE breach, which explicitly says *Not to count headlines as WP:RS), it says he was spreading a 'conspiracy theory'. Not the same thing, again WP:OR.

 "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

In review, there is not any WP:RS material that calls him a conspiracy theorist, or more importantly that Human Events hired a "conspiracy theorist". Which is getting into BLP infractions. What is presently on the article needs to be changed period. Removing conspiracy theorist seems to be the most accurate way to keep it in compliance with Encyclopedic tone. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

there is not any WP:RS material that calls him a conspiracy theorist Yes there is, see Jack Posobiec. There is no source material that states Human Events hired him because he is a conspiracy theorist...or more importantly that Human Events hired a "conspiracy theorist" I already told you the edit does not say or imply he was hired because he is a conspiracy theorist. The Source *DOES SAY " hiring of the extremely talented and influential Jack Posobiec" Well of course they would say that. Take this to the article Talk page so others may participate. Please do not continue this discussion here. soibangla (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, your addition on Kari Lake from 16 October (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kari_Lake&diff=1050251194&oldid=1050239469) has been reverted/challenged multiple times. Per WP:BRD you should discuss the changes on the talk page first before reinstating. Thanks -FMSky (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

FMSky, no need to come here, I saw your edit summary. soibangla (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would you remove the decision of this case, unless you have a problem with documentation. In the decision, it clearly says Wendy Rogers was successful with getting the case reversed in her favor. What is there to object about? It is not my interpretation of the decision, but the actual decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SterlingSpots (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

SterlingSpots, it is your interpretation of a primary source. Get a secondary source. And you should bring this up on the article Talk page so everyone can see and discuss, not here. soibangla (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not an interpretation of a primary source, it plainly gives the courts decision. That is all. If you want a second source, here is another webpage's summary of the case: http://www.biahelp.com/rogers-v-hon-mroz/ Court decisions are not open for interpretation, they are final and stand unless appealed by one of the parties involved in the case. SterlingSpots (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That's simply not how we do things here. Take this to the article Talk page and maybe others will explain it to you. Don't continue talking about it here, please. soibangla (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed several times that you seem to be using some kind of bot to "fill in 1 bare reference(s) with reFill 2." However, the bot merely adds the title of the article to the url. It doesn't add the name(s) of the author(s), where given, nor the date of the publication or the access-date. The author's name helps the reader to distinguish between sources, as does the date, and both date and access-date are useful information for other editors, for example when repairing dead links (WP:DEADREF). I have fixed the aforementioned cite, and it's not a big deal, but it would be nice if you could keep this in mind when adding cites. Thanks! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I typically circle back and fill the blanks reFill leaves, but I concede sometimes I don't, especially when I moving fast. I'll try better. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

A few thoughts...

The chronological sequence of events in the Kenosha unrest shooting is in the lead, but there is far too much detail.

It appears to me that Rittenhouse killed a man and fled. Others viewed him as an active shooter, a killer who should be disarmed and stopped, so they pursued him and grabbed at his weapon.

Does an active shooter have a right to self-defense, and if so, in light of their actions, is that right legitimate? If the police arrest a criminal who is caught in the act, the criminal does not have a right to resist arrest, IOW they do not have a right to defend themselves from apprehension. What's the difference in a citizen's arrest situation like what happened during those events in Kenosha?

Have any RS discussed the events from that angle? -- Valjean (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Every time someone indicates that they think Let's Go Brandon is unworthy of an article on Wikipedia, my faith in Wikipedia is restored. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD summarizes the body of the article. So don't inject a news item into the lead of an article without editing the body, please. Also, citations generally aren't needed in the lead. VQuakr (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You edit war the content back out of the article body, then accuse me of "drama" in article talk space?? Look in the mirror, bud. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT soibangla (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I did, I moved it to the body (which you reverted). Only one of us is mashing the revert button and sniping personal attacks in article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact you did not fix it in an AGF fashion, I did not edit war, and I did not engage in personal attacks. Look in the mirror, bud. soibangla (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of acting in bad faith, or thinking you were acting in bad faith? Neither if the case, of course. I did fix it; you reverted the fix. WP:CIVIL is policy BTW. VQuakr (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, since you object to lead cites, presumably you'll get right on with removing all the other lead cites in those three articles soibangla (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I misread the lead and thought " It was the first House censure since 2010 and only the 24th in American history" was implying the 24th censure of any time in American history and not specifically the House. Bill Williams 23:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I made the article neutral, I didn't make it say Trump was right or wrong. But you couldn't stand it could you? So much for a neutral point of view. Iamarealhumanbeing (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Soibangla. FYI, I referred to you at ARCA in this comment — not by name, but by diff. Bishonen | tålk 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC).

Note that per MOS:LABEL contentious labels are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". I had removed those terms because they were not used in "in-text attribution", though I definitely agree they can be added and are based in the references, but need to be framed as such. I won't undo your reversion of my changes, but note that in its present state, those terms fall short of the MoS. Spencer^T•C 06:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

isn't the entire last section there about Cruz's assertions? First his characterization and second his clarification. Viktory02 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"clarification" soibangla (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wanted draw your attention to this NPOV discussion, and I would ask you kindly to assume good faith. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No policy has been formulated from that discussion as yet. The other day you said the sources didn't specifically mention the subject, so I got a valid secondary that did in every case, then you said a list isn't good enough, but it's perfectly fine for that purpose, it doesn't require a narrative (even though the source had one). You also objected to cut/paste, but laziness is no good reason to object, because it applies in each article. What's lazy is not making a modicum of effort to find a source, or at least adding a CN tag, but rather making wholesale removals, which I might add were in only Republican BLPs in every case, in a very significant matter. In the Posey case, you were not objecting to cut/paste, but again you didn't make an effort to find a secondary, which again took me 5 seconds, but you again made the invalid objection that it's a list, but it also has narrative. soibangla (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Having a "secondary source" that only mentions the subject once, and includes a parroted list from a primary source is not a secondary source. I shouldn't have to do extra research on what a vote is or why it's significant to the subject because the sources fail to do so. And narrative? If the "narrative" isn't found within the source that includes the subject, then it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't be including narratives that aren't extremely relevant to the subject. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Having a "secondary source" that only mentions the subject once, and includes a parroted list from a primary source is not a secondary source. Yes it is, you just don't like it, perhaps because instead you are determined to make sweeping wholesale removals across numerous BLPs, seeing as you made no effort to even add a CN tag, let alone find a source, for any of those BLPs. There are countless narrative sources that mention an individual only once, and by your reasoning a source that includes a quote from that individual is "parroting." Similarly if a secondary references a primary, say, a government document, which is commonplace. I shouldn't have to do extra research on what a vote is or why it's significant to the subject because the sources fail to do so. The WP article text provides that information, the source verifies it. If the "narrative" isn't found within the source that includes the subject But it is. It's like a WP list article: narrative followed by list. Simply because the secondary's narrative is briefer than what might be found in a full-narrative article doesn't make it illegitimate. It's not as if the source is no more than a CSV text list, as you seem to portray it. soibangla (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay... but when you say The WP article text provides that information, the source verifies it, the text is based primarily off of a primary source with no synthesis/analysis of how it pertains specifically to the subject of the article. By your logic, we could potentially include any and all votes that have "list" secondary sources, no? In today's age, we can find a proper "secondary" list source for nearly any vote, so to what end? If there is not a reasonable explanation for how the vote/legislation itself is pertinent to the BLP subject, then how is adding that vote due? If it were due, then there would be appropriate synthesis and analysis of such vote and the subject. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Simply because the secondary's narrative is briefer than what might be found in a full-narrative article doesn't make it illegitimate. We aren't talking about brevity, we are talking about substance and relevance to the subject of the article. I would invoke onus, due, npov, ad absurdum. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

we are talking about substance and relevance which is what we, as editors, provide. That's why we're all here. The sources verify it. soibangla (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If users are adding content that is barely relevant to the subject without authentic secondary source analysis and pertinence, that content is undue and screams onus. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If users are adding content that is barely relevant to the subject...that content is undue You might have plausibly made that argument as basis for your removals, but you didn't. You're making that argument now. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I had difficulty finding the most poetic way to articulate my argument in a succinct manner. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You couldn't simply say UNDUE? Color me skeptical. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can find policy or get a ruling that shows the source I used is not an authentic secondary source, I will certainly comply with that, but if you can't please stop insisting it's not authentic simply because you personally believe it. soibangla (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there an analysis or synthesis of information in the Mercury list source you found that are pertinent to the subjects of the BLPs we are talking about? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Despite your insistence that Mercury needs to provide that, it doesn't soibangla (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, surely you are aware of this. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

In no way have I suggested that verifiability guarantees inclusion. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, that was my response to you saying we are talking about substance and relevance which is what we, as editors, provide. That's why we're all here. The sources verify it. Verifiable information, yes. Should all verifiable information be included, when it lacks the analysis and close connection to the subject of a BLP article? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Look, you just made it clear with your Guy Reschenthaler edit that you're just gonna do what you wanna do, regardless of flawed reasoning and shifting rationales. I'm not wasting any more time on this. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You removed cited state law regarding penalties for ignoring subpoenas (added by Kkeeran) by claiming in your edit note that it "maybe true, but we can't use it because it relies on interpretation of a primary source, namely a statute." The statute (i.e. the law) was cited in its entirety without interpretation by the user, which is as neutral as you could possibly make it. What's next, removing cited law from the US Constitution because it doesn't fit the expected narrative on the page? 174.65.152.153 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to participate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Statutes_as_sources

soibangla (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

In the Trump section at the Big lie article, the following quote seems out of place. Even though it's in an article about Trump's use of the big lie, the quote is about the German use of the technique, so it needs to be moved, but I'm not sure where.

Valjean (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To me, you immediately say it's the other side that tells the big lie dovetails with Republicans tried to appropriate the term. But yes, it's not ideal. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe Snyder should come last in the section. soibangla (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Soibangla:, thank you for the edit to a BitFiEx article when you added the 2 people who were caught. I checked out your user page and you had a link to "a known quantity" article. How did you get that status by RT? Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

We need a grand mother article entitled Russian support for Donald Trump's presidency or Trump/Russia mutual support relationship (not the best title... ). It would collect all the threads together into a more coherent narrative from before he ran until, and including, his unsuccessful 2020 bid. Trump has expressed his welcoming acceptance of Russian support and election interference, and the Russians have always supported him. They started cultivating him as an asset already back in 1987. That two-way, mutual-support, symbiosis should be documented in one place. We would keep our existing articles, but summarize them in one article, because it's all about their support, which includes more than just outright "interference" (a very narrow and limiting term), that is the point. He welcomed that support, even when he knew their military cyber operations were illegally attacking the United States. Lending support to the enemy in time of war (a military cyberattack is an act of warfare) is the classic definition of treason.

The first public expressions of support came from Russians he had met at the 2013 Miss Universe contest. Alferova's Jan 22, 2014 tweet is significant evidence that he had been talking with Russians about his plans before the American public knew of them: "Apparently she knew Trump was going to run for president a year and a half before he made his formal announcement." This has been cited as evidence of collusion.

REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ... Volume5: "The Committee found that the connection between Trump and the Agalarovs began in 2013 with planning for the Miss Universe Moscow pageant."

The contrast between all of Trump's false denials of contacts with Russia and the actual facts would be a good introduction, with the rest of the article showing the denials were all "dead cat" lies intended to direct media and public interest away from Trump and his team's actual connections with Russia.^[1]

Summaries of the following articles would be used for sections in the meta-article:

• Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections (intelligence report)
• Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia
• Trump Tower Moscow
• Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
• Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections
• Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections
• Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election
• Trump Tower wiretapping allegations (conspiracy theory)
• 2018 Russia–United States summit (Helsinki)
• Foreign policy of Donald Trump (2015–2016)#Russia and Ukraine
• Foreign policy of Donald Trump (2015–2016)#Trump viewed as under Putin's influence
• Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration
• Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia
• Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)
• Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation
• Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election
• Steele dossier
• Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump
• List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump
• Russia investigation origins counter-narrative
• Trump–Ukraine scandal
• Spygate (conspiracy theory)
• Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election
• Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
• Timelines related to Donald Trump and Russian interference in United States elections (all the timelines)
• Carter Page
• More articles.....

Do you see any merit in this idea? -- Valjean (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Some people have suggested starting an RfC as a result of your proposal at WP:RS/N. Don't be misled by my most recent comments there: I don't support the idea of turning this discussion, already in progress, into an RfC, as it would likely result in another no consensus (or similar), but if that discussion fails to yield an actionable consensus, then I would support a proper RfC in the near future (later this year, after that discussion is archived and mostly forgotten about). That would further distance it from the previous RfC and give more time to build a better case, and Fox will almost certainly provide more examples as time goes on, if there aren't enough already.
There are lessons to be learned from this discussion and the previous RfC - there needs to be a mountain of high-quality evidence that the opposition will be unable to counter (easy enough to obtain in this case), that is also carefully summarized for the majority of respondents who will just tl;dr, and we can anticipate many of the counterarguments that will be made, because the opposition always makes use of the same tired old tropes and clichés. In particular, we know that there will be attempts to derail the discussion by changing the topic, and something should be done to prevent that. Everyone involved knows that Fox News will not be green-lit as a result of these discussions, so the opposition strategy seems to be to do things like that to force a no consensus, as it's the best outcome they can reasonably expect.
Mysterious Whisper (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

soibangla, would you mind me removing the rfc tag? With multiple people on both sides of the issue objecting, and the issues of previous bolded !votes making less sense with the standard format, I'm mostly convinced that my adding the tag was a mistake. I'd prefer not to remove it without your permission, as you reverted to restore it after Springee's second removal.

Unlike MW above, I think we could immediately restart a new discussion. I would be glad to do it, but I'd also be just as happy to let you kick things off. I do think we should ping the participants in the current discussion so they can weigh in again. How does that all sound to you? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would be glad to do it is fine by me. soibangla (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think you've both been a bit foolish; as have I. This discussion, and any offshoots, will not be the last we as a community have on this matter.
soibangla, after the dust settles, I would be happy to do a bit of brainstorming on what happens next. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you have started the RfC I wanted to run some things by you before talking about them over there, as not to go off-topic or WP:BLUD. (Possible off-topic question) Do you think those that find it's inclusion undue on GOP would also feel that it's inclusion on the Republican National Committee article might also be inappropriate? After contemplating and asking for clarification for quite some time now, I am still having a tough time understanding the supposed disconnect between, not just the GOP and RNC, but basic policy on what should be considered DUE and UNDUE for something that isn't even LEDE oriented, as of yet. Am I missing something? This event has had so many RS, I'm not sure how one can qualify it as fringe or WP:NOTNEWS ETC... To me, what stands out indisputably is the historic aspect as reported by ABC news and other sources. I do not subscribe to NYT, but if the cite you provided also makes mention of it, I would not be surprised. As the governing body of the GOP it seems quite easily plausible that this act will have future effects on the two figures censured, as well as the possibility of being a turning point in the way the RNC functions and conducts future resolutions for the GOP. That's my spiel. Am I coming across like a broken record ie WP:BLUD? I do hope we can find some consensus regarding this issue, so that we can finally agree on how to move forward. Thanks for any input. DN (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You broke 1RR with this and this edit. The 17th you had 4 reverts on the article. Which you were warned about on the talk page here. Please self revert. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

PackMecEng, you're free to alert an admin of your choosing that I made two reverts within 23h 4m.soibangla (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

NYT I'm trying to keep track of how much attention this is getting from RS but its difficult with soft paywalls etc... Could you take a look and perhaps provide a quick snapshot or quote of the context? If not, no big deal. Thanks. DN (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Darknipples I'm not sure what LPD is. soibangla (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm referring to Legitimate Political Discourse. DN (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't cite the assertion. Cite needed. Love your work! BusterD (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Which assertion, specifically? soibangla (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

BusterD Do you mean in the lead? I also put it in the body with two cites. soibangla (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I missed your citation farther down. Sorry. Based on this article, I think it wouldn't out of line to cite inside the lede. For my part, when I see a very long edit summary, my hackles go up. BusterD (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Disinformation Governance Board 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Soibangla. I am glad to see you have been editing and improving articles on American politics, and I appreciate your contributions to the article (Nina Jankowicz) I made the other day. However, there is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia saying that paywalled/offline sources are to be removed for that alone (see WP:PAYWALL), so I do not understand edits like this. I am not particularly interested in arguing about politics on Wikipedia, but today I am planning to expand and copyedit the article, and what you're doing makes it difficult for me to do that. I would prefer if you consulted policies and guidelines (i.e. WP:RSP) prior to making reverts there in the future. jp×g 19:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I previously said on article Talk that I withdrew my PAYWALL concern, which was in error. I continue to have concerns about OR from primaries and I look forward to collegially colloborating with you in that and other matters. soibangla (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2000 Mules. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. There are no reliable sources which do not conclude that all the allegations in that film are false. Your edit serves only the effort to create a false balance in contradiction to the sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It almost appears this account was hacked, but one strange edit proves nothing. I corrected the error. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, in case anyone is interested, this was the edit in question. By that time, I had written nearly all of 2000 Mules#Content and methodology to show the film is essentially trash. soibangla (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what made the edit so out of character. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I object to it solely on stylistic grounds, but it's not worth enough to me to debate it. I did it, it was reverted, so be it. soibangla (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

??? Have you been hacked? Don't you realize you deleted properly-sourced content and the sources? This isn't about changing one word. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Heads up, I think there is more to this editor than he is letting on. There are many plants and shills that plague wikipedia, as you know, and then this editor slipped and dropped this attack on me for what was essentially a misunderstanding. I don't buy for a second that he "was hacked". Also, take into account his history of edit warring above. I think he's engaging in WP:GAMING and between this edit and his other one, sorry, that is too many coincidences for me. If it does this again, I will launch a formal WP:ANI. Good catch. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not login? soibangla (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you were indeed "praising me",lol, then you could've had good faith when I accidentally reverted you, rather than attack me with vulgar language.lol When you drop the f-bomb, and a personal threat, over what was ultimately a misunderstanding, that is a big flag. You've been around long enough to know better. If you check the history of 2000 mules, you will see that moments earlier a troll had vandalized the page and I mistakenly reverted your edit while trying to revert that one. In any case, I am indeed transparent so if you'd like you can discuss your grievances here, maybe it is a better place since apparently I'm not the only one you are raising red flags with. As for your 'compliments', it honestly feels like you are grooming me for what is a slow-motion edit war in service of WP:GAMING behavior. Just saying it like it is. Cheers. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There was no personal threat from me. You are extremely adamant about this issue and I disagreed and now you're comin' after me. Please login so I can see who you are. soibangla (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

it honestly feels like you are grooming me for what is a slow-motion edit war in service of WP:GAMING behavior is complete, total and absolute nonsense. soibangla (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, speaking of "nonsense" so was this, which yes is very much "a threat" not to mention a red flag of an unstable editor, which in these here parts you'd be insta-banned for less, partner. I am willing to let it go but, if you'd prefer, we can do a WP:ANI and have a proper formal discussion on the matter. In that spirit- Please stop asking me about 'my formal account', which is just creepy. There is a reason they let us use anonymity on talk pages because maybe, with contentious articles like this, I don't want to be harassed by unstable editors who sometimes liberally use the f-bomb when they get triggered.*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* Just move on, the drama is over. Cheers2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I encourage you to take it to ANI. soibangla (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have hatted a similar discussion on my talk page. These poisonous attacks by IP2601 need to stop. The IP also needs to create an account. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The editor is clearly knowledgable and experienced, thus likely has an account but has chosen to be anon. I have a sense of who the editor is and I think an admin should have a look. soibangla (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I know conspiracy theories are the rage about EVERYTHING these days but, if you really must know, I am a former editor from many MANY moons ago. A reputable one from WAY back during the W.Bush years. I walked away because of family and travel and just decided to reduce my connection to life through computers. It's not worth the trouble bringing my old account out of retirement as my edits here are vanilla ones, and I was okay with debating on the talk page(s), etc. My account was in good standing, and I'm just coming on for this little stint to address this controversy as it just happened to be in my wheelhouse. What started this drama today was an editor "telling me to f*** off" and you are fine with that, and the other red flags you brought up, that's on you. But as I told another idealistic liberal-minded editor over at the other page, and said idealism rubbing the wrong way, if it makes you feel better, I'm wrapping up my little adventure as I feel like I've done all that I can here, and done my part to contribute to a better wikipedia in these dark times. My etiquette comes form the Wild West days of wikipedia, another reason why I'm not too keen on jumping back in. The world is just too emo for my tastes. So, other than a few token edits here or there, I'm happy to go back to my collection of books and my analogue life and leave you digital warriors to this brave new world. Nothing personal, and I say "cheers", because my ma in England raised me so well, but I was also raised a Star Trek geek by my pa so to paraphrase Spock Prime, cheers is like my customary farewell "live long and prosper" but that would be self-serving so instead I leave you with "Good luck". 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You said you accidentally removed my Talk edit as vandalism because you confused it with a previous edit that was vandalism. I don't see you subsequently corrected your "error" and removed any previous edit that you say was vandalism, which makes me skeptical of your rationale for removing my Talk page edit, which in my book is a great big no-no. If anything really ticks me off here, it's people removing another editor's Talk comments, but I did not tell you to f-off, as you assert. I dropped an f-bomb. The far more plausible explanation for your reversion is that you have spent days persistently, repetitously and vociferously arguing that "falsely" must be included, essentially demanding it, and effectively browbeating anyone who dares to disagree. I specifically went out of my way to compliment your "compelling points," not mentioning your abrasive tactics for which you cannot be held accountable because you're posting IP. And then I came along and disagreed, whereupon you removed my Talk comment and came to my Talk page to get in my face, then went to another editor's Talk page in an effort to recruit them against me, suggesting I am a plant or shill, but instead were told you were way outta line. Then you baselessly accuse me of gaming to somehow draw you into a slow-motion edit war. Excuse me? And you evidently ignore all the content I added to the article that rips the film to shreds, not to mention ignoring my extensive edit history which clearly demonstrates I have no patience for right-wing conspiracy theories and propaganda. I'm just absolutely gobsmacked by what you've done here. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I was already over it, but you couldn’t let it go. So sometimes when you stare into the abyss, it stares back, eh? As for the rest, if I truly thought you were guilty of WP:SOAPBOXING then I’d have reverted you for the same reason I reverted your other edits with the tag WP:NOTAFORUM, and my brief history (since I’ve been back) shows my consistency in this matter. Despite your ego, I’m not worried about your about-face- you would likely be reverted if you arbitrarily tried to remove the word “falsely” like you were the last time. So with your grandiose statements, or out-there interpretations aside, (amusing as they are) the simple truth is that I’m offended at any effort to undermine a democracy in any country, and there would be something wrong with me if I were not offended. Hopefully now that you got all that all off your chest you can go back to being a useful contributor. Cheers 216.200.84.231 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If you were already over it, you would have stopped editing on my Talk page with any expectation that I wouldn't need to respond. soibangla (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but you got triggered again, and tried to put words in my mouth, so I wanted to go record in case someone else reading this was mislead. But, please, have the last word if that is important to you. Cheers 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

? your reason for the revert ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&oldid=prev&diff=1088711753 RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan: Your edit didn't describe anything the source said. Did it find the emails were fake? soibangla (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have updated the article to show that NBC has now verified the laptop. RonaldDuncan (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I recently saw you nominate the Hunter Biden iCloud leak for deletion. In your nominated, you stated This article, created hours ago, contains lots of allegedly and supposedly and anonymous and claimed stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target and I suggest it be promptly removed. At most it might warrant a mention in the man's BLP, if even that. I wanted to send a quick reminder about WP:RAPID, which is about not rushing to delete articles. From a look at the article's edit history, it appears no PROD or Speedy Deletion attempts were made, which, based on your statement, the article would have qualified for. So just as a reminder for the future, there are alternatives to an AfD nomination, especially within the first 24 hours of an article creation.

Also, I am a little concerned about the wording of your AfD nomination, specifically the phrase ...claimed stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target... In a AfD nomination, it is best to remain neutral and state the exact reason, normally done through a Wikipedia guideline/policy, that the article in question should be deleted. So, for the future, I would recommend staying with a neutral point of view in any AfD nominations.

Have a wonderful day and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Elijahandskip (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

And then a different "Elijah" quickly appears. Coincidences are fascinating. soibangla (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You hit the press. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Soibangla,

Your RFPP request asked for full protection on your user talk page - which I'm not aware of any precedent for. I did wonder if you had meant your userpage.

Given the rate of problems, I've gone with my best interpretation - full protection on your userpage, temporary AC on your usertalk page.

Please ping me asap to clarify, and any other admin should override my protection on request (or as they themselves see fit, in the absence of clarity). Nosebagbear (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Soibangla,

I've been watching things unfold at Talk:Recession, and taking some admin actions as needed, and I can't help but empathize with you. I too have seen myself become the villain in the eyes of off-wiki agitators. (Not talking about those who participated in my RfA, but rather about banned users and outsiders who resorted to harassment, death threats, etc.)

Each of us works hard to put forward in life the image we want others to have of us. It can be deeply frustrating—in a way I think not understood by those who haven't experienced it—to lose control of that narrative and see misrepresentations and lies spread about yourself, without a way to change the minds of the gullible, the motivated reasoners, and those with confirmation bias, all of whom are readily believing whatever they're told.

And so it can be tempting to double down, to dig in, to say more, to try to reclaim the narrative. But it doesn't work that way. People will believe that they want to believe. Like there's people who will read this and believe that I'm writing it because I agree with your political views, even though I'm guessing we disagree on more things than we agree on, but there's nothing I can say that will convince them otherwise. And I've just had to come to accept that some people will always see the caricature of me.

I'd encourage you to disengage at the talkpage. You've said a lot, and some of it has served to inflame things at a time when others like JPxG are trying to deëscalate, in pursuit of an outcome that doesn't involve a long-term semi of the page.

Maybe spend some time editing outside of AMPOL for a bit. Or spend some time away from Wikipedia. You clearly offer something valuable to this project, but getting carried away in a dispute in a DS area is how a lot of editors' stories turn sad.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I was with you until you pinged JPxG to praise them as a deëscalator. I'll just say I vehemently disagree with that characterization and leave it at that. Nevertheless, I've said about all I want to say there and I will now step back and observe my inevitable vindication unfold. soibangla (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about anyone else's backgrounds, and I don't mean to boast, but I studied economics at the #1 program in the world and I have been fully aware of this issue for decades. I know all about it. The bottom line is the article was opportunistically gamed to change a long-standing neutral lead to a politically slanted lead, following the lead of conservative media. It is a disgrace to this encyclopedia. All that needs to happen is the long-standing lead be restored to its original neutral tone and everyone who is not trying to inject political POV into the article will be happy. In any event, I'm outta there. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections has a lead with SEVEN paragraphs, some quite long. Can we pare this down? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The following sanction now applies to you:

1 week topic ban from the current economic conditions of the United States

You have been sanctioned for treating Wikipedia like a battleground.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero, all any editor had to do was come to my Talk page and ask me to tone it down or risk sanctions, as a preemptive, corrective warning. No one did. Instead, I am being retroactively punished after I already stated I was disengaging from the topic. soibangla (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero, I'm a bit confused. Have I been sanctioned pursuant to DS? If so, wouldn't there be a DS banner on the article page to warn editors? I don't see it. Or do admins have universal DS authority regardless of any banner notice? If not, shouldn't this have proceeded via ANI/AE? I'm not as well-versed in policies as others are, so I'd appreciate some guidance on this to preclude any future sanctions. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero, just one other question and I'll drop this. Isn't it pretty much standard procedure here to warn an editor on their Talk page (which did not happen here) and if the warning goes unheeded an editor can pursue ANI/AE remedies, or an admin can exercise immediate DS authority if the matter involves a DS area? In American law, this is called due process, but I understand we're not in a courtroom. soibangla (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

In this thread at AN I asked whether AP/DS might be applied to the page, and @Dennis Brown: responded with what I consider appropriate caution and seriousness that such an interpretation would best be done with more than a single Admin's discretion. I was quite surprised to see this sanction on Soibangla, who was initially the singlehanded bastion against vandalism -- not a content dispute, just off-wiki canvassed vandalism to change the lead. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that the sentence most at-issue here was restored by Endwise 3 hours after Soibangla removed it, this comment seems tantamount to accusing Endwise of vandalism and being canvassed. I don't know I'd call this a single admin's discretion, since I already cautioned Soibangla above, only to be rebuffed; if you want a second admin to countersign this, then I do. And they are called "discretionary sanctions" for a reason; a one-week limited-scope TBAN seems like a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion, and I think Soibangla is lucky that it's so narrow and for such a short period of time, giving their consistently inflammatory contributions on this topic and rejection of efforts to deëscalate. Frankly—and this isn't a critique of Guerillero by any means, but rather our general culture as applies to political disruption—I think we would have already indeffed or fully TBANned an editor behaving this way in the opposite direction politically. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin You say I rebuffed you but in fact I said I was with you until you pinged a certain editor to praise them (I will not elaborate further on why I objected to that). You suggested I take a break, that was the entire thrust of your edit, and I said I was. Please provide me with my "consistently inflammatory contributions" as opposed to my extensive constructive contributions, because none have been presented as a basis for sanction. There was no warning, no evidence presented, but like a bolt from the blue one admin tbans me on the basis of DS where DS is not in effect. soibangla (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, please elaborate on what you're talking about here:

Given that the sentence most at-issue here was restored by Endwise 3 hours after Soibangla removed it, this comment seems tantamount to accusing Endwise of vandalism and being canvassed.

Are you talking about the two times I reverted Endwise and asked they follow BRD, but they did not and restored the edits anyway? And would you also like to discuss the registered user who logged out so they could launch into a personal tirade against me with no accountablity, and when I told them that was not appropriate for an article Talk page and instead take it to my Talk page, they continued with the tirade anyway until another editor asked them to stop? soibangla (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think your second post answers the question in your first post. To answer the question in your second post, Endwise's revert was not vandalism, thus it was inappropriate for SPECIFICO to describe all of the edits against you on Recession as vandalism.

Your comments here are pushing at the edge of the TBAN you just received. If you wish to continue discussing the circumstances that led to the TBAN, you should do so in an appeal at WP:AN or WP:AE. (If you go with the former, a word to the wise, since there's no designated format for AN appeals: In my experience it's most effective to preëmptively make "Statements" and "Discussion among uninvolved editors" sections, lest all the statements from parties get mixed in.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

So, instead of honoring my request to produce any evidence of "consistently inflammatory contributions" that might justify this sanction in the first place, instead I receive a veiled threat of Your comments here are pushing at the edge of the TBAN you just received. soibangla (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I produced evidence: Your comments on this page. I could also just link to your contributions for the past few days. And I would not call that threat veiled. But if you'd like something more explicit: If you continue talking about a dispute in the topic area you are banned from, outside of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution or other provisions of WP:BANEX, I will block you for the duration of the TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you said I was engaged in ""consistently inflammatory contributions" on the Recession talk page. The admin who sanctioned me presented none, you have presented none. Instead, I receive a threat that I'm pushing my luck by even making reasonable requests, and instead of considering even the possibility that one admin made a bad call, I'm told to go jump through hoops in an appeal where everyone can pile on. soibangla (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, I saw your supportive comment to Soibangla elsewhere on this page, and thanks for that -- although I disagree with what you said about what you see as "deescalation." I commented on that editor's talk page about the RfC, without any response. But do you feel that AP2 authorized DS on Economics? As I said at AN.. maybe. But I think perhaps you or @Guerillero: should go to ARCA to get clarity for now and the future. I'm not seeing how Endwise was helping out by reinserting contentious material after it had been BRD-reverted. BTW, I'm kind of perplexed that you have accused me of accusing Endwise....etc. I don't think that was at all related to what I was addressing. Almost immediately there was rampant vandalism on that page, and Soibangla was standing against it. That, I think, is the crux. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)19:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm not sure that the broad topic of "economics in the United States" would fall under AP2 DS, and just "economics" definitely wouldn't, but I think "the current economic conditions of the United States" does. I find that things like ARCA threads are better started as adversarial (in the legal term-of-art sense, not as in "hostile") than as self-reviews, so I'd encourage you to start one if you disagree. As to my comments on Endwise, my point is just that not everyone reverting Soibangla was a vandal. Endwise, for instance, is not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't you talking to Endwise for violating BRD twice to ram into the lead contentious content that did not exist there for years, in the midst of a political firestorm, and nobody so much as sniffed at it? soibangla (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Well, I said "initially..." But there was also more vandalism on the talk page, where Soibangla was a hero. Endwise was not a vandal, but they inflamed the situation greatly, and showed very poor judgment IMO and were arguably an edit-warrior given the context and the canvassed mob. Soibangla is intent on deescalating -- he has not even appealed the ban yet. Strictly speaking only he and the blocking Admin have standing, I suppose, but I think it would be helpful to go to ARCA. Just to give another example of a somewhat related set of events: We have anti-abortion activists, gun control, or gender issues activists editing Politics articles even after being banned from their specific topics. Could an editor be banned for violating a gun control TBAN for Ted Cruz content? Could a gender TBAN'ed editor be sanctioned for Matt Gaetz content? In both cases, without explicitly mentioning the banned topic. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the TBAN that was just imposed, immediately after I warned you that continuing to discuss the dispute it was imposed over would lead to a block, you have been blocked from editing for the duration of the TBAN (until 12:52 on 6 August 2022). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Good news! Now you have standing to ask ARCA's guidance on the DS TBAN authority! SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This trigger finger block violates its own premises: "I warned you that continuing to discuss the dispute it was imposed over would lead to a block." (Underlining added.) The dispute here was over the non-warning and block itself, not about "the dispute it was imposed over". This block is based on a misunderstanding and should be reversed immediately. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: The comment that triggered the block was Why aren't you talking to Endwise for violating BRD twice to ram into the lead contentious content that did not exist there for years, in the midst of a political firestorm, and nobody so much as sniffed at it? That was clearly about the dispute that led to the TBAN being imposed—a dispute that falls under the TBAN's scope. I gave two warnings. If Soibangla had any confusion about whether that fell under the TBAN's scope, they had two chances to ask. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, we know you are operating in good faith. But consider the assessment of the first 3 experienced AP editors who happened to see these sanctions -- each of us voicing concern verging on disbelief that such sanctions would be imposed and surprise at the novel theory of the first TBAN with an unprecedented broadening the previous interpretation of AP/DS. Now that you are directly involved, I urge you to go to ARCA for validation and clarification so that editors will understand the environment in which we are editing henceforth. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This may be unnecessary, but I think I need to add it to avoid any doubt. Economics is a well-established social science and an academic discipline with a vast literature that is self-critical, reason-based and constantly developing. It is not a political point of view. To trained economists, the suggestion that economic issues are merely narratives that cloak political agendas is profoundly distressing and offensive. It's no different than the politicization of public health policy or any of a number of other recent eviscerations of accumulated scholarship and knowledge. Soibangla has said he is a trained economist with deep knowledge in macroeconomics. The assertion of two Admins now that he was acting to promote a political POV is unintelligible. He, and I and several other editors who may be trained economists repeatedly tried to oppose politicization of the page, not to promote any political view pro or con. Those who made arguments and comments about the (red herring, false, uninformed) purported political issue are the ones who might arguably be sanctioned under AP2, not the editor who repeatedly tried to explain why this was not a political issue. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither the TBAN nor the block is for POV-pushing. The TBAN is for treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and the block is for breaching the TBAN after two warnings. And, just as in an edit war, being right (assumed arguendo) is not a defense to either of those. As to a clarification request, that's up to Soibangla. Like Bill Clinton and James Carville, I don't see it as in quetion that "the current economic conditions of the United States" falls under AMPOL jurisdiction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The content that was inserted directly into the lead was not about current economic conditions of the US. It was about scientific methodology and a definition. It was others who falsely and disruptively claimed it was a political issue. And I join those who do not understand why Endwise was not cited for reinserting challenged content instead of using the talk page, or why they would change the lead without reference to the article text that remained unchanged. Do you disagree that this interpretation and application of AP/DS is unprecedented? As I said above, there are many analogous situations where no Admin has taken such action, even when the analogous relation has been discussed on talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

We're talking in circles here, SPECIFICO. Everything you've just said, I've either already answered, or is a misrepresentation of my previous comments. I have nothing further to say on this matter except in response to an appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside the intricacies of procedures and acronyms for just a moment, blocking someone after they have announced they are disengaging from the Talk page that is the source of the dispute is ... well, I've tried out various adjectives here, and I think I'll go with "baffling". As for the comments on this page that have been called "inflammatory", everything I can see is barely tepid. A claim of subject-matter expertise, "I reverted so-and-so and asked that they follow such-and-such common practice, but they didn't" ... if that's "inflammatory", then we might as well block everyone who ever participates at ANI. And, delving back into the procedures, it's hard for me to see the comment that triggered the block as anything other than addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. XOR'easter (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the possibility that sanctions about American politics should apply when a topic in economics has become politicized. That's not a priori unreasonable. But by the same token, we have to acknowledge that in an environment where anything can be politicized for a few days, editors will in good faith be coming at those topics from their prior background. Remember when people got upset that a production of Julius Caesar had a Caesar who looked like Trump ? Is Shakespeare under the jurisdiction of AP2 discretionary sanctions? Suppose that incident had led to people brigading over here to argue over whether Brutus was a hero or a villain. Would a Shakespearean scholar be topic-banned under AP2 for reverting the lede of Julius Caesar?

I think reasonable people can disagree about what rules ought to come into play under such conditions. (In the past, I've argued for broad interpretations of various restrictions myself.) Consequently, the decision of what sanctions are in force should be made before the topic bans start getting handed out. Here, there was uncertainty about whether AP2 DS should be applied, followed by a topic ban, followed by that ban being co-signed. Is this a good decision-making process? If anyone wants to quote me as saying that it seems a backwards way of going about the matter, well, here's the comment for you. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And it gets into the very fraught area of imputing motives or agendas to editors in just about every topic area on this site. Clearly defined limits and alignment of expectations among the population are absolutely required for any social system to sustain itself as an functioning community. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

On 9 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trump fake electors plot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Donald Trump and his attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani spoke to some 300 Republican state legislators in an effort to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trump alternate electors controversy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Trump fake electors plot), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"I will now step back and observe my inevitable vindication unfold."

"implementing RFC outcome, which never seems to have actually been implemented; reverting lead to stable version from July 14th"

soibangla (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back. Andre🚐 03:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

third quarter real GDP growth: 2.6%

average monthly private job creation since June: 308,000

worst. recession. ever.

soibangla (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday, an IP editor suggested in a rather incivil tone of (paraphasing) "this has been repeatedly explained to you, but you just don't get it, so sit down and shut up already") when I questioned DS policy and its application.]

Today, that IP editor concedes:

I fully agree that DS/GS are a complete mess, but I think that's just an artefact of it being a confused system that has grown out of 2 decades of arbitration cases. Really it needs a full rewrite - defining some boundaries on what an admin can do as an individual action and what requires a consensus of admins would be a good start (emphasis mine)

This confirms that my consistent argument has merit, after I've been told by many that it has none.

Perhaps the IP editor would like to join me in spearheading an effort like this to ensure that DS is "legislated and codified" to make it unambiguous, rather than continue being the cobbling together of "case law" over two decades, resulting in endless disputes over DS policy:

I may in the future seek policy clarification and reform. Per policy, I may be wrong. Alternatively, maybe the policy is wrong. I believe it is.

soibangla (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

[IP response removed]

soibangla (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

soibangla, you might like to sign up for the update list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review. It's not clear when the next phase of the process will begin, but I imagine you might care to contribute some feedback next time the community is consulted. During this period of review (more than a year now), I have seen some DS reform occur, and other proposals have been waved off with a "major changes coming, don't sweat the details just now"-type response. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone earlier posited to me:

the topic ban policy is absolutely unambiguous that a topic ban applies to discussions related to the topic on your own talk page (emphasis mine)

Indeed, WP:TBAN states:

For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:

• discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes) (emphasis mine)

Please consider this scenario: an admin topic bans an editor without warning in an article space where no DS notice is posted. Stunned, the editor first goes to the banning admin's Talk page, then to their own Talk page, to discuss the rationale for the ban, to determine whether it was justified or whether an appeal might be pursued.

After discussing the nature of the ban, a different involved admin blocks the editor "for violating the TBAN that was just imposed, immediately after I warned you that continuing to discuss the dispute it was imposed over would lead to a block" (emphasis mine).

So, was the editor discussing the topic from which they were banned, which would be a policy violation that might ostensibly warrant a block, or were they discussing the nature of the ban, as a preliminary measure to decide whether to appeal?

If there is a clear distinction, should WP:TBAN be amended to note that? soibangla (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I see you moved Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) but not the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I botched that. I just did the article. soibangla (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you changinging your signature to point to User:Me? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is that still happening? Dammit. It takes too long to explain but I'll fix it. Did you see it only on the Trump Talk page or elsewhere too? soibangla (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That's where I noticed it several times. How can that happen if you aren't doing it deliberately? It looks like you're revising previous sigs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Also at Talk:Mueller Special Counsel investigation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

And here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

a browser script I was running did not function as I anticipated, turned it off, won't recur soibangla (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I have fixed the ones I could find. I haven't done an extensive search. Now User:Me shouldn't get anymore pings and other confusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Where can I get that script?😼 SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Tuckerlieberman, Valjean soibangla (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Great. FYI, there is also "United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election". From that article, just now I linked to the newer "Smith special counsel investigation". Tuckerlieberman (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla, the Donald Trump article has a section "Special counsel investigation". Do you want to try to link to "Smith special counsel investigation" from there? Just an idea. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I added it to the section devoted to it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean, glad you found it. I gave the wrong link here, sorry. For anyone who's looking for it: The relevant section on the Donald Trump article is Special counsel investigations (with an -s). Without an -s, it's the section about the Mueller investigation. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Template:Donald Trump should be updated with a whole section devoted to all the investigations related to him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, now I've added a section 7 for investigations, but now section 8 doesn't show. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please explain this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_Files&diff=1127766872&oldid=1127765625 . Thanks! Albertinon (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Albertinon, what do you want explained? It seems fine to me. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 21:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well firstly, WP:Editing policy#Be helpful: explain. But in this case the edit removing "content of the Files is supposed to demonstrate that" makes it less accurate. see source. Albertinon (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Flibbertigibbets has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Very much appreciate your insights!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Collapse_of_Silicon_Valley_Bank#Bernie_Marcus_quote

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll just point you to User_talk:RoyLeban#Hunter Biden laptop controversy for the reasons your edit is disruptive and WP:POINTY. I urge you to close the thread as advice has been given in numerous places about steps to take and one that you won't find is make an edit contravening the established consensus and start a 99th thread on the talk page. Slywriter (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter, I am not RoyLeban, I do not follow his Talk page, and I am not aware that my edit is contravening the established consensus. To my knowledge, my edit simply includes something that had not been previously included and thus consensus has not been established to exclude it. To my knowledge, it has not been established that Hunter dropped off the laptop, and this should have been included long ago. I challenge your assertion the edit is disruptive. In any case, you have reverted it and it will remain excluded unless consensus is reached to include it. soibangla (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter, "disruptive" is a term that suggests my edit may be sanctionable, so unless you can demonstrate my edit contradicts established consensus, I ask you to strike it. soibangla (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

::You absolutely know better than that, and you yourself said "I was not present for the RFC and had significant issues with its conclusion, but we're bound to honor it." Since then there's been a second RFC which you participated in, and numerous talk page discussions which you also participated in. I'm in disbelief you are actually claiming your disruptive edit did not contradict established consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

But just to be fair, there has been an RFC, a 3RR thread reviewed by admins, a close review at the administrators' noticeboard, a BLPN thread, a close review review at AN, a thread at ANI claiming the lead was a policy violation, and another RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC),

I'm now realizing the edit was related to who abandoned it and not the ownership topic. I was so used to seeing the "purportedly" added to the question of the ownership. That issue has also been discussed several times, and the results have been to simply say that it had been abandoned without mentioning by who. I think this was the most recent discussion with SPECIFICO saying "dropped off" (but not by who) was reliably sourced. It was also discussed here with not really a clear conclusion how to handle it, but keep as status quo (without saying who). It was also discussed here with sourcing where nobody really challenged that the laptop had been abandoned or bothered to question by whom. I think a separate RFC would be necessary to find consensus to add a qualifier to the "abandoned" part, as looking back the random talk page discussions don't seem productive. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That is nonsense. It only requires an RfC when there is insistent refusal to listen to and compromise with other editors' considered views. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No consensus is required prior to a Bold edit. SPECIFICO talk 08:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I note a lot of strikethrough backpedaling here to avoid boomerang blocks for these attacks on Soibangla. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I notice you are trying to cause trouble and fan the flames while others have worked to calm things. Perhaps skip the commentary Slywriter (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, calm the flames at your feet when you were at risk of a boomerang sanction. No point trying to spin it. This is all on the record. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Appreciate the documentation in real time of your attempt to continue a dispute not involving you and create more division when others have sought to cool the situation. Also may want to read again as I see no boomerang aimed at my head nor call for one from uninvolved parties or soibangla himself but by all means keep digging. Slywriter (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Howdy. I think you may have messed up the other fellow's post at the HBLT talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, you mean the indentation? IIRC it was indented that odd way before I edited. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible. I was confused as to who the preceding poster was, as the his moniker is missing. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Soibangla. Thank you.

Thanks for uploading File:Dominion brief with Fox communications.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Soibangla. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Trump alternate electors controversy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1154964333

Time for you to work your magic. The reactions to his meager report will be interesting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

John Durham’s Investigation Has Disclosed Corruption: His Own. The Barr-appointed special counsel was supposed to reveal “the crime of the century.” All he revealed was his incompetence—and worse.^[1]

It would be good for the Durham special counsel investigation and Russia investigation origins counter-narrative articles. Somewhere there is a source that early on called Durham's efforts an attempt to "cover-up" (or "coverup") Trump's misdeeds. We need to find that source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

While the Durham report is sketchy, it isn't totally worthless. I just discovered a common error made by some RS, and carried over into the Steele dossier article. That is the idea that when Trump stayed at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in 2013, he actually stayed in the Presidential Suite, where the pee tape was allegedly filmed. The Durham report says that hotel records show he never stayed in that room.

So here's what really happened. He did stay at the hotel, but he "hired" the Presidential Suite, as that's where Obama had stayed. I've had to rework some of that content now. The dossier itself never says he "stayed" in the Presidential Suite, only that he "hired" it. So this is one time the primary source was accurate, but vague, and some RS got it wrong by assuming something not explicitly stated by the primary source. This doesn't really change anything about the allegation, but it does refine our understanding of the geographical context. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Andrew C. McCarthy, while a conspiracy theorist, is/was a good researcher, and here he was right:

Trump's supporters reacted strongly to these reports of Danchenko's arrest, but conservative columnist and attorney Andrew C. McCarthy described their reactions as "if not irrational, then exaggerated". He provided context when he urged them to be cautious, as Durham's indictments "narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself."^[1]

In his report, Durham waxes long about how Danchenko and other sources lied to him, but Danchenko's lies did not change the facts he was reporting, only the attribution of the source(s) of the allegations. Danchenko was just doing what agents often do, they seek to slur the identities of their sources to protect them. He, and likely Steele, did that with the identities of some of their sources, but that does not affect the accuracy of the allegations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Now editors who are clearly NOTHERE are attacking the Steele dossier article again. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Soibangla. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Trump alternate electors controversy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! '−'Talk!} 22:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That was an early draft of Trump fake electors plot that I forgot all about. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi soibangla, I hope you are well. I was a bit taken aback to see this group of edits. They're not disruptive per se, but also not productive. I'd appreciate if you can provide an argument or go through the proper delete/move process next time. I know you posted that very soon after the page was created, but it could have been a lot more productive. The void century (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

yesterday was not a good day for me, very stressed soibangla (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I hope it gets better. The void century (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I certainly understand the points people made. I try to see the good in people, even rude IP editors. I myself get pretty frustrated with the intransigent editors. I got even more frustrated when I was basically attack when I finally responded to people who were attacking me routinely. That doesn't excuse rudeness or IP editing, but it does make me want to see the points, not the rudeness. I prioritized WP:TALKO over WP:NOTFORUM and it does seem those policies are in conflict. (Also, WP:NOTFORUM is not quite so explicit that it is unquestionable that the IP editor's comments would violate it — they did make some valid points.) Somebody should address the conflict between those two policies, or at least add a cross-reference, and perhaps clarify WP:NOTFORUM too. RoyLeban (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I would have restored a comment I disagreed with too. I felt somebody was silenced for tone, not content. RoyLeban (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Soibangla. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments like these aren't particularly helpful when someone proposes a change to an article with an explanation of their reasoning. If you don't like a change, telling us why would be nice. I'd recommend reading WP:SQSAVOID: the chief characteristic of legitimate status quo defending is substantive discussion regarding the change. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I asked you to clarify the substance of your proposed change, you gave it, I didn't find it necessary. Does this have anything to do with you previously making a significant change of longstanding content in the article without discussion, which I reverted? A statement is not discussion. soibangla (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

So when I said the following:

To that end, I think this would be a better formulation: "Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, making various false allegations that he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office...

And you replied:

so you're saying Trump did not make various false allegations? is that the substance of your change? but he did

How was I meant to take that? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I asked for a clarification. You gave it. I did not find it meaningful. That's discussion. soibangla (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Your "ask for clarification" fully misrepresented what I had said prior, so I assumed you had not read it. And if you hadn't read my prior comments with much care, I didn't see the value in providing much additional detail upon your request. Discussion here involves writing and reading. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent anything. I may have misunderstood, which is why I asked for a clarification. You gave it and I did not see merit in it. In any event, I was most certainly not stonewalling. I do not wish to discuss this further as you appear to be moving into aspersions now. soibangla (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Soibangla. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding original research into articles. In your contribution to the laptop article you conduct original research by using two sources that don't mention the laptop. You were also responsible for adding the original paragraph, which consists of improper synthesis: one of the sources doesn't mention the laptop, while the other mentions the laptop in different context you imply. When you were confronted on the talk page, you didn't even substantially defend your revert, and instead said "I have not been involved in discussion of the paragraph I added weeks ago. you have not reached consensus to alter or remove it."

In other articles, I have several times encountered your original research. Sometimes I have reverted your edits if it's obvious that the content cannot rescued. Sometimes I have altered your edits, but I don't time to fix everything. For example, at the House investigation article you added a background section that uses many old sources that obviously don't the reference the article topic. Please remember that all material involving living persons must strictly adhere to NOR policy (+ NPOV and V).

Repeatedly adding original research is a sign of tendentious editing. Please stop. Politrukki (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Politrukki: I disagree with your interpretation, in significant ways. In the future, please immediately challenge what you consider tendentious editing rather than allege on a retrospective basis that I demonstrate a pattern of such without evidence. What little evidence you do provide here is specious. I do not wish to discuss this further. soibangla (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

In this edit you reinstated – without consensus and in violation of page restrictions – a source that does not mention the laptop at all, and removed one that does (even if doesn't support the content).

Please read the essay Wikipedia:Communication is required. You should substantively discuss the content dispute on the article talk page (saying there is "no consensus" is not substantive discussion if you haven't provided policy-based arguments before) and you should listen to complaints about behaviour (you certainly don't have to agree with the complaints, but at least try to listen). When you say "I disagree with your interpretation", do you refer to TE or NOR? If it's about the latter, please expand.

I have complained about your OR editing before. Back in the 2019 you insisted that I should prove an evidence-free claim. In the article talk page discussion another user explained you how OR works, but you didn't give an inch. Now, this case and the cases I mentioned in the opening post are different because now you have used at least pseudo-reliable sources; sources that have been published by respectable publications, but that don't directly support the statements they are attached to. Politrukki (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have complained about your OR editing before Yes, once. 4.5 years ago. I've improved a bit since then. If you believe I persistently demonstrate improper editing, I suggest you seek to have me sanctioned. In lieu of that, you can revert my edits that seem problematic to you and we can go through BRD. soibangla (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Politrukki, the SYNTH bit has been rejected on talk. I see no reason to repeat it, certainly not in terms of editor misconduct. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Politrukki, today you suggested I misused sources to create OR on Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but evidently you did not read in depth, or were unable to read a NYT source due to a paywall, which showed my contribution was fully supported by a highly reliable source. It was not remotely OR. Perhaps you were just mistaken because you didn't adequately examine the source, but if you figured this was a gotcha ("again," you said in your edit summary, after just taking something resembling a swipe at me on Talk without pinging me) I suggest you do better. I seek no conflict with you, and I hope one does not develop. soibangla (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I lost track of the talk page discussions and your fixes on that page. In trying to revert the IP, I made some other tweaks which didn't take account of your previous version. A few problems remain with that text. I think business cycle is unnecessary and assumes all kinds of things that are not necessary to the definition of a contraction. I think also the text now says a demand shock may be due to a supply shock. That would be confusing to a lay reader. Somehow the less common, but recently very significant, possibility of a supply shock would better be isolated from the list of demand shocks. Thanks for keeping an eye on this page. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't been so thrilled since the first time I saw my name in the phone book.

https://www.rt.com/news/581379-hunter-biden-wikipedia-edits-consulting/

SPECIFICO Objective3000 Neutrality soibangla (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, where's my paycheck? Earflaps is also mentioned -- blocked in 2016 and mostly edited music articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the notice, I must have missed my RT subscription renewal date. Very distinguished company, and we now have a link to show the Arbs Admins and ANImals who don't get it. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is in re: "Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration"

You make your political affiliation quite clear in your edits, which is fine... until that conflicts with the core ideas behind Wikpedia; like completely removing someone's genuine, fair, good faith contributions. I think if you be honest with yourself it's clear that the change you made was unfair and it's frustrating to me to see my work deleted. I hope next time, you give pause before removing the work someone else did to improve Wikipedia in their spare time. :( 2601:648:8800:3B70:438:8F2E:7B2A:D5BD (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Also if you want to discuss why you object to my edit, I'm happy to do so but please do not delete it again... 2601:648:8800:3B70:438:8F2E:7B2A:D5BD (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I hurt your feelings, kinda sorta. soibangla (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

thx xxx 2601:648:8800:3B70:2A:9BFF:65E1:AA20 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valjean/Why_Crossfire_Hurricane%3F

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Durham said there had been inadequate predication to open a full investigation in July 2016, but that only an assessment or preliminary investigation was warranted by that time. Although the report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor", it did not find political motivation or a "deep state" plot.

I'm curious, have you by chance ever looked into the history of the term deep state? What's so weird and unusual, is that Trump and his alt-right minions (or at least the ones writing his talking points, like Bannon etc.) stole the term "deep state" from the left to use it against them. In other words, the American left previously appropriated the term from Turkey, and used it to describe the military industrial complex and the anti-democratic overtones of unelected bureaucrats who promoted a kind of slow, incrementalism that held back progress. The irony, is that this usage refers primary to the American right wing, particularly around the concept of dark money and disinformation networks that worked from the outside in, as authors like Naomi Oreskes Jane Mayer, Anne Nelson, and Nancy MacLean described it (albeit without ever using the term "deep state"). I should also point out, this is not the first time Trump & Co. borrowed a term from the left and used it against them. The most famous example of this is Trump's use of the term "fake news", which the left used to describe right wing misinformation like Fox News. Like the term "deep state", Trump took the term "fake news" and inverted it, using it instead to describe factual news sources. Just wondering if you have ever given any kind of thought to this, since you are actively editing around the subject. My personal take, is that this was one small part of Steve Bannon's overarching "Leninism", an attempt to destroy the conservative establishment by employing the tools and weapons of the left. In case you think that's somewhat crazy, there's a lot of supporting evidence. One of the most notable and observable aspects was the merging of left and right and conspiracy theories during 2020. That's when we saw the rise of conspirituality, a big tent fringe movement that allowed people on the left and the right to mingle together and join a wider movement, suffused with a kind of nebulous extreme right wing tinge that the people on the left within that movement were unable to recognize. This is exactly what happened when Trump used terms like the deep state and fake news. In many ways, it was ingenious, as it brought people from the left to the right without them knowing it, and used their participation in an attempt to destroy both the left and establishment right. It has Bannon's fingerprints all over it. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you recently undid my edit to Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden. It is my understanding that the names of the sources should be used in articles like these.

Tangentially, I find it unsatisfactory that you have removed the new york times as a source to the article, after I went through the effort to add it.

Peace and love 96.227.223.203 (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I am currently reviewing Active Club Network, which has a good amount of plagiarism per Earwig's copyvio detector. Please ensure that you are not paraphrasing things too closely or forgetting to quote things that should be attributed to another source. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look. soibangla (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Voorts is there a way I can see the cooyvio detector results from before you made your changes? soibangla (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I am certainly no expert on Earwig's copyvio detector, but from what I can tell by running it on the article version through my last edit prior to this notification, the tool compared all my edits to all references and returned "Violation Unlikely" in every case. Here is the permalink to the scan of that article version, which I had restored for this scan.

So I am a bit confused by the tag now at the top of the article saying my edits "contain significant copyright violations."

I received this notification less than 5 hours after I created the article, while I was still on my first pass, before proceeding to a second draft to tighten things up. soibangla (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There was language that was directly copy-pasted from several of the articles cited that were not in quotes. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You accused me of plagiarism, a very serious allegation that has been known to ruin careers, but the evidence you cited did not find that. You placed in quotes the common term white race and placed in quotes my paraphrasing of a source that did not contain such a quote. You made other changes that were trivial in my view, such as "current or former" to "serving or had served," just to name one. soibangla (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember every case, but here are a couple:

This was not in quotes before I added quotes: "stealing more than 10,000 rounds of ammunition and several grenades from a weapons depot at Camp Pendleton".

Likewise, the original article said "shadow, stand-by army", which is a too close paraphrase of the source, which says "shadow or stand-by army".

I am sorry for using the word plagiarism; I am not accusing you of intentional misconduct and hope we can work together constructively. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Voorts I hadn't even finished my first pass, and was preparing for my second pass to tighten things up. Your action was precipitous and unwarranted by the evidence you cited, your fixes were poor, then you put a tag at the top of the article suggesting my work was so bad that it required revdel, which is tantamount to putting a badge of shame on me, right up top. soibangla (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I responded to your message on my talk page but for keeping messaging together, I will repeat myself. You cannot copy text and fix it up. Copyright violations are copyright violations even in intermediate versions. The revdel template is not a badge of shame; it is a request for administrative action and appropriate for the circumstance. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Whpq I was not making wholesale lifts of copyright content. Some phrases may have been too-tight paraphrases which I intended to quickly ameliorate. it was not plagiarism and Voorts should be admonished for that very serious allegation of fraud. soibangla (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, you copied text and closely paraphrased. Voorts took the appropriate action under our copyright policy which includes notification of an admin to revision delete the material. Voort has made no accusation of fraud that I can see. I consider your post a personal attack on voorts and it unacceptable behaviour. Don't do it again, and I suggest you apologize for the unfounded accusation. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Voorts said my work "has a good amount of plagiarism"

Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work soibangla (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Voorts statement is accurate. You did copy text. That's it. There is nothing more to read into it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying my work is fraudulent? soibangla (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You copied text from several sources, and did not either paraphrase it or put it in quotes. As I have said three times now, I do not believe that you did this intentionally, but it is nonetheless not allowed on Wikipedia. If your method involves copying things while you're working on writing something (which I myself do), I recommend immediately putting the copied text in quotation marks to avoid accidental plagiarism. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes or no, Whpq? I cannot overstate the gravity of falsely alleging an editor has engaged in willful and unethical fraudulence, rather than simple inadvertent too-tight paraphrasing, and I find it difficult to fathom how editors with special privileges evidently don't draw this distinction by now. This egregiously false allegation goes well beyond a mere personal attack; it impugns my integrity such that it might well lead others to distrust my work, and perhaps even conclude this should disqualify me from further participation on Wikipedia. Plagiarism has ruined careers in journalism and academia. Now, Voorts has apologized for calling it plagiarism, whereas you just concurred with it. At this point of discussion, if I was in your and Voorts's position, I would strike any statement of or allusion to plagiarism and explain in the edit summary that such an allegation is false and improper. But that's just me. Alternatively, perhaps we can discuss this further in another venue. soibangla (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I archived the threads on my page because the conversation was done there. I also don't intend to discuss this anymore here because both @Whpq and I have reassured you that neither of us are accusing you of fraud (indeed, accidental plagiarism is a thing). If you want to take this to the CESSPIT, so be it, but I don't think that that will be a productive use of anyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Whpq just concurred with your unqualified statement that my work "has a good amount of plagiarism." Is it too much trouble to strike it, noting in the edit summary that the allegation is false and improper, such that any future discussion is precluded? soibangla (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Voorts I can understand that those who have made false and grave allegations that impugn another's integrity might not find it a productive use of their time to later discuss it. I've given you a very easy out, I recommend you take it soibangla (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You had copied text. Whether that was done purposefully or by accident is irrelevant. It was still copied text, and still a copyright violation. Nobody has accused you of fraud. The only person who has brought up fraud is you. Your copying is inadvertent. I accept that. That should be the end of it. There is nothing to strike through. We all make mistakes. I suggest you learn from this one and get back to editing. -- Whpq (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Whpq:

Alleged: your work "has a good amount of plagiarism"

Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.

What part of "fraudulent" don't you get? And then you say I owe Voorts an apology. lol, smh soibangla (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Election denial movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

– Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that my recommendation for the change on the Hunter Biden laptop question, is different than what was discussed months ago. I am NOT arguing that the information should be removed entirely, just that it should be reworded. Epachamo (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Epachamo: the phrase is not editorializing as you initially asserted. now you say it's WP:SYNTH. perhaps it's actually WP:IDONTLIKEIT? soibangla (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not possible that it is both synth and editorial? Specifically, do ANY of the sources mention the laptop? If not, then its SYNTH. In MOS:EDITORIAL, you will see the word "despite" is specifically called out as a word to watch out for. Epachamo (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

since these matters have been previously discussed at length, and the challenged phrasing remains, I recommend one of the editors now raising these questions open an RfC to solicit input from a broader audience soibangla (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Before, as I read the history, it was challenging the entire sentence, which I am not doing. This is a different matter. Epachamo (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

that is not my recollection, though I don't claim perfect recall soibangla (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Soibangla. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

this request was declined 11 Apr 2024, no cause was found soibangla (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Readers can assume "to date" means when they are reading it because I'm pretty certain that if the republicans find anything in their mudracking that someone will edit it in almost immediately. The alternative is people constantly updating that section and adding new sources on the end and then someone else has to come along and decide which sources have to be removed. Not ideal. TarnishedPath^talk 07:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Howdy. I adjusted the closing part of your hatting. I presumed you hadn't intended to hat the rest of Trump's talkpage :) 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW - An RFC at 2024 Donald Trump presidential campaign page, is considering the option of creating a 'new' page to house Trump's rhetoric. This, might effect your RFC about Trump bio page. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay I have asked you a specific question there and I would appreciate a specific response soibangla (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I've responded by changing my position at your RFC on Donald Trump page. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I finally got around to updating the article and moving it. Now we need to update the links to the old "blog" location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Lawfare_(blog) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please reply at User talk:Andrevan. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

July-Oct. 2016

How can I keep that from breaking up at a line break? I want it all to remain together as a unit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: Multiple ways, including my preference: {{nowrap|July-Oct. 2016}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Your ethic and edits are exemplary, so I think this is long overdue. DN (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. I appreciate the advice from earlier. I've been running out of ideas on how to mitigate that issue. If you have any other suggestions, by all means, please let me know. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, you’re doing this again - adding new information into an article's lede without adding it to the article's body. WP:LEAD is clear: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Your recent edit at Tom Parker (judge) is assuredly is not a basic fact. Please try not to do this again in the future. starship.paint (RUN) 09:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I hope this finds you well. Regarding the talk page of Project 2025, please do not feed the troll. I frankly don't think that is the best use of your time. Second, may suggest you initiate an automated service to archive your personal talk page. Let me know if you need help. Best! Nerd271 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm done with that editor, but many have come to that Talk to complain how it's all-so-unfair, so maybe others will see my response and think a bit more about it. I want to leave my Talk as it is, thanks. soibangla (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is limited to four paragraphs. As you made a subsequent edit after expanding the lead of Project 2025 to five paras, I had to revert it as well. Don't expand the lead while there is a discussion about shortening it! Skyerise (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs" soibangla (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, but it's a requirement for an article to make FA. Also taken into account in GA reviews, and should certainly not be exceeded without a talk page consensus to do so. Skyerise (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise: I'm not too concerned about nominations for an award. soibangla (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with awards. FA articles get featured on the front page of Wikipedia. Considering the importance you attribute below, I would think getting the article on the front page might be important to you. If the lead is five paragraphs, or we IAR other rules, there is no chance of the article getting featured on the front page. So I would suggest we try to follow the guidelines for GA and FA and see if getting the article featured can be done later this year, say in October? Skyerise (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, the primary reason I oppose a shorter lead is because it would be tantamount to a whitewash, a term another active editor of the article has used, an evisceration of vital information in a highly contentious topic, which might inspire the motivation for proposing the shortening of the #3 viewed Wikipedia article yesterday. I don't see a consensus forming for shortening, rather I see consensus for the status quo. This topic is of such momentous importance at this point that in some respects I believe WP:IAR should considered to some degree, per WP:5P5, as most readers seldom get past the lead. soibangla (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Project 2025 is the most-viewed Wikipedia article for the past two days soibangla (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that claim you just moved is cited to Snopes. Which certain people have called "fake". So won't those people take it to mean the exact opposite of what Snopes say? I can't figure out whether that means we should or shouldn't find a better citation. It makes my brain hurt. Lol. Skyerise (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Soibangla, just wanted to request a little more WP:civility in our interactions on Project 2025. Thanks for all your hard work on this and other really important topics. Superb Owl (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Superb Owl, how have I been incivil? soibangla (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are two recent examples that came across as a tad aggressive/dismissive of good faith edits on Talk:Project 2025#clunky writing
1) I find this change mystifying
2) I can, but I see no need to as it seems quite straightforward to me
Superb Owl (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those comments are incivil, in my opinion. They are not about you, but rather about the writer of the comments themselves, perhaps with implications about the writing being addressed, but without any reference to another editor such as yourself. Skyerise (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit nitpicky but I just wanted to let @Soibangla know that those comments can be perceived as uncivil, especially by newer editors, even if most experienced editors do not Superb Owl (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary marks this edit as an "Undid" of my revert. However, you have done more than "Undo" my revert... you changed it. Your edit summary serves to make me look incompetent. Please don't say something is an "Undo" when you have done more than just "undo" someone else's work. I hope you understand the issue. Next time, I would reccomend simply and actually "Undoing" the previous work, and THEN edit it to make it more acceptable. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Marcus Markup, you may think the edit summary "serves to make me look incompetent," but that was certainly not my intent, I merely intended to condense two steps into one. the edit summary was not misleading soibangla (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, don't do that. Thanks. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

it wasn't enough to complain to me here? you also had to revert it again and make me add it right back? smh soibangla (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Edits with inaccurate or misleading edit summaries should be reverted on-sight. Thank you for providing an unambiguous one this time for your contribution, one which does not imply that the previous editor had reading comprehension issues. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

the edit summary was not misleading, you just objected to me condensing two steps into one in a way you think made you look incompetent. enough of this. soibangla (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you (@Soibangla) spread the theory that Former President Trump wasn’t shot during the recent assassination attempt, please remember that Wikipedia is not a political forum, so please take your opinions and theories to r/politics, or wait until all the information becomes available. MrMcOrange (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

MrMcOrange, is the FBI director spreading conspiracy theories?

Wray said the exact nature of Trump’s injury remains uncertain: "There’s some question about whether or not it's a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear."

soibangla (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

But you are choosing to call one of those two plausible explanations "dubious" in Wikipedia's voice without providing a reference to a reliable source calling the bullet graze explanation "dubious" or any reasonable synonym of dubious. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not create the dubious tag, you know who did. I find the claim now disputable due to Wray's statement, and the lead should reflect that for the time being. soibangla (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Whelp this one has been debunked, can you not remove it from your page this time? MrMcOrange (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It's finally official on July 26, 2024: FBI says Trump was indeed struck by bullet during assassination attempt. It took this long to confirm that fact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Despite the total absence of evidence — no video, no photos, no medical report, no FBI report, no Secret Service report — but evidence to the contrary, the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources conclude Donald Trump was struck by a rifle bullet, walked away and played golf the next day, so that's what we run with here because them's the rules.

All hail reliable sources! soibangla (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Third-party filing: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Remsense诉 21:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the topic of the assassination attempt of Donald Trump, broadly construed, for 90 days.

You have been sanctioned for bludgeoning, NPOV, and disruptive editing

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish: I will not appeal this sanction. I would like to apologize for losing sight of where I was while challenging the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources: Wikipedia. Not some social media site, Wikipedia. I became deeply and intensely immersed in the story and lost perspective of where I was. As soon as I saw the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, I should have taken my arguments somewhere else, because them's the rules, but in my days-long immersion, I did not. This was a blunder that I have learned from and will not repeat. That said, I was not spreading conspiracy theories. soibangla (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your awareness and self-reflection. That is what I was hoping for when I went with a narrow-scope fixed duration topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I too appreciate your understanding. I noticed what was going on, but didn't get involved. I had other things on my plate, and now the Park Fire is threatening us. I was a bit worried as your behavior seemed atypical. Tunnel vision can do that. Now let's move on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I may have more to say about this episode on this page in 90 days, and then I may leave. I am not a conspiracy theorist. that's all I got here for now. soibangla (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry if anything that I said had anything to do with this, me calling you a conspiracy theorist is something I have learned to regret, even if I don’t agree with you ideologically and I hope that you get unbanned from the subject, as I genuinely believe that you want to spread what you see as the truth, as all of us Wikipedians do. MrMcOrange (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Soibangla, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Sanewashing, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanewashing.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Darth Stabro}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would normally keep a warning like this informal, but given that you've gotten into similar trouble before in other places, I do have to log this one at AE. Your conduct at Talk:Hurricane Helene#there is no SYNTH in this edit, where you've left a whopping 16 of the 40 comments, exhibits incivil and battleground behavior more than once. Some of your comments are straight-up aspersions towards other editors in the discussion (1 2); you deleted another user's comment (a minor one, sure) and then, instead of taking them seriously when they asked you not to do that, did a "gotcha!"; and there are other examples of your comments being needlessly aggressive and/or sarcastic (1 2 3 4 5, one self-reverted revision excluded).

Looking through your talk page, I don't think this is an isolated incident. I do notice that in the thread, you're mostly focused on the content, and that's good. But just being focused on the content doesn't mean you can't behave incivilly in other ways; if you let your feelings about contributors or circumstances control the way you treat people, that something else typing on your keyboard will derail the things you want to contribute here and disrupt others' ability to collaborate with you. Thanks. (You can see my log of this warning here.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

theleekycauldron you know, I really considered how best to seriously respond and pick this apart, but I cannot as yet catch my breath from laughing. I find logging me on a surveillance watchlist to alert others that I might be a Wikipedia terrorist to be particularly amusing. have you considered why longtime productive editors finally become exasperated and leave? your edit could be the final straw for me, but you can always ban me for sarcasm first. I have nothing more on this and I appreciate if you would not respond here. soibangla (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, I really think you should consider what theleekycauldron is saying here. Looking at your edit history over the long term it's clear you feel that putting contemporary partisan material in articles improves the articles. It's also clear that you are less than open to editors who don't agree. This is hardly a new issue issue and is an editing style that continues today . Given the contentious areas where you like to edit and the material you often insert I would suggest accepting that many good faith editors won't see things the same way as you. If they push back you should accept that as good faith objection rather than some sort of personal attack. Springee (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey there :) I just wanted to let you know that I received your message on my talk page, but I've been offwiki for a few days because of personal circumstances and don't anticipate returning to full activity for a few more. Looking forward to continuing our conversation when I get back, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here, although I am a past object of said incivility, now piping up. I urge editor Soibangla to heed theleekycauldron's suggestions, instead of responding flippantly with: "I cannot as yet catch my breath from laughing... you can always ban me for sarcasm" and dismissing her (Leeky Cauldron's) gently-worded warning as "I have nothing more on this and I appreciate if you would not respond here". If all, or even a small fraction of editors were to react like this, our collaborative project of open knowledge sharing would no longer be possible.

Noting Springee's observations about your focus on inclusion of contemporary partisan material. It is commendable that you are so vigilant about keeping Wiki main space up-to-date. When you respond to mild enquiry as though brusquely challenged, or with disdain and aspersion, "longtime productive editors [like me DO tend to] become exasperated and leave." I had a glance at ANI in which you were mentioned and found a remarkable 30 entries in three years. You were not always the provocateur, merely an involved party. Given that you've emerged unscathed, it makes sense that you are cavalier about an AE warning.--FeralOink (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the false edit filter positive when you attempted to revert some vandalism yesterday; that has been fixed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 20:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

On 25 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sanewashing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both Tim Walz and JD Vance were accused of sanewashing in the 2024 vice presidential debate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sanewashing. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sanewashing), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 24,000 views (1,000.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Soibangla,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out about a consensus debate currently happening on Donald Trump’s page, as it mirrors a similar situation we encountered during Joe Biden’s presidency. Four years ago, we agreed on a consensus to keep the lead sentence format, which I believe was both fair and sensible. Specifically, the line for Joe Biden was: "...who has been the 46th and current president of the United States since 2021." Looking back, I see that you were in favor of maintaining this as the status quo. Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RfC: Should we say he is "current" president in the lead, or not?

I believe we should apply this same structure to Donald Trump’s page, just as we did for Joe Biden and Barack Obama before him, to ensure consistency and clarity. This format clearly conveys the order ("47th"), incumbency ("current"), and start date ("since 2025"), which helps maintain uniformity across presidential biographies.

Given your involvement and support in that earlier consensus, your insights would be incredibly valuable in the current discussion. It’s important that we uphold the same standards regardless of the officeholder, and I’d appreciate it if you could weigh in, share your thoughts, and cast a vote. Here is the current discussion and vote underway: Talk:Donald Trump, Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Thanks a lot, and I hope you’ll consider contributing. TimeToFixThis (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey

You sure that this revert was appropriate? This isnt something I care enough about to get into reverting reverts, but adding contentious stuff to a high notice BLP page is just inviting trouble. Would you be willing to explain why you felt that the phrase must be included before the RFC for its inclusion finishes? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what that link has to do with me, please don't explain, just drop it soibangla (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why the link wasnt working, but it should now. Corrected, could you answer now? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

my edit was entirely proper. please stop talking to me. thank you. soibangla (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The following topic ban now applies to you:

you are topic-banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, see below.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Soibangla, you've been around here for a while. You should know better than to cast aspersions about whether other editors are trying to cover up the truth about Trump-aligned figures, especially when you've already landed a logged warning for making a strikingly similar comment. You've also been restoring content challenged as a BLP violation, even though doing so without consensus violates WP:BLPRESTORE. This applies even when there is an ongoing RfC on the subject, especially given that RfC is currently leaning strongly against your position. You've taken your opponents to AN, trying to get them sanctioned for correctly enforcing our BLP policy.

Given your history of disruption in this area, which has resulted in two previous topic bans (1 2), a block for violating one of those, and the aforementioned logged warning, I don't see any other option than an indefinite topic ban. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

well I suppose BATTLE in CTAP over a decade shouldn't be too surprising

cheers soibangla (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"cast[ing] aspersions about whether other editors are trying to cover up the truth about Trump-aligned figures" simply did not happen. it is patently false that I took anyone to AN in an effort to get them sanctioned for any reason, and especially not because of my RfC position. it is a totally invented narrative. I say again: a totally invented narrative. the core argument the admin has made is simply not rooted in reality.

the admin announced my sanction just beneath my AN edit, and when, yesterday, I explained to the admin that my AN edit did not mean what they thought it meant, they said "I didn't say your edits to AN cast aspersions. The concerning edit was this one," they pivoted to a different edit that had not been previously mentioned anywhere, and that edit did not cast aspersions on anyone. in my experience, a shifting rationale means there is no actual rationale.

the allegation that I violated a topic ban in 2022 is patently false. it was false then, it remains false now, and the ensuing block was improperly predicated. the blocking editor erred.

some editors argued during an RfC that there was a BLP vio underway, but others disagreed, so this had not been established as consensus. people were violating the status quo that existed prior to the RfC, so I was restoring that status quo while the RfC remained open, unknowingly violating BLPRESTORE, which other editors also unknowingly violated by restoring the status quo. BLPRESTORE is an obscure policy.

of my previous topic bans, one was for one week after a brawl involving many editors ensued in recession, and the other was actually a 90-day article ban

this sanction was a profoundly bad call. just a thoroughly embarrassing disgrace to this encyclopedia. soibangla (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll just mention one thing from your reply. some editors argued during an RfC that there was a BLP vio underway, but others disagreed, so this had not been established as consensus. WP:BLPRESTORE is clear, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. With BLP, no positive consensus means it isn't included. BLPRESTORE is part of WP:BLP, one of most important and commonly invoked policies. There's even a whole noticeboard for it, and it's a contentious topic that you've been alerted to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

while understanding the importance of BLP, I would be curious to know what percentage of editors have ever heard of it BLPRESTORE. from the small sample I observed in the RfC, I would surmise not a majority. most are exopedians rather than metapedians. soibangla (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

that there exists a dedicated BLP noticeboard tends to support that the policy is complicated and nuanced, and thus editors/admins persistently disagree on its interpretation, and may make edits based on mistaken interpretations or ignorance of these complicated and nuanced policies. Wikipedia is a huge machine, and hardly a week went by that I did not discover a policy shortname I had never heard of before, and I was here nearly daily for over a decade. I discovered BLPRESTORE only when I was sanctioned, never heard of it before. maybe some metapedians find that implausible, but unlike them, the vast majority of editors do not spend their time in the back rooms debating policy.

realizing we are not in an American courtroom, there is a principle of intent to violate law in order to find guilt. I had no such intent. my AN edit was intended solely to get the RfC back on track, because it was being circumvented, and I later recommended to the sanctioning admin that a notice be posted on the Talk page to remind those who were not aware of BLPRESTORE, as I was not. I was restoring the content that pre-existed the RfC, not because it was my preferred content, but because others were ignoring the open RfC to remove content they disliked. I had no doubt the RfC would not approve my preferred content, it was abundantly obvious; my only motive was to restore the status quo and preserve the integrity of the RfC. I was not attempting to malign others to get my way, I simply do not operate that way.

Wikipedia has become a minefield of policies: one bad step, and BOOM, you're done. soibangla (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

one last thing as I head to the door: this whole AE logging thing in which one admin can place an editor on a permanent shitlist is some seriously fucked-up police state bullshit and should be abolished. Jimbo Wales soibangla (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

"they said "I didn't say your edits to AN cast aspersions. The concerning edit was this one," they pivoted to a different edit that had not been previously mentioned anywhere" If it soothes your cabal fears, in the very first post informing you of the topic ban, (when he said "You should know better than to cast aspersions), the "cast aspersions" link is a link to the same edit as the admin later said was the issue. He wasn't "pivoting to a entirely different edit never previously mentioned." That edit was pointed out from the start. Just10A (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

keep it real

Valjean Muboshgu DougWeller ScottishFinnishRadish Drmies Acroterion Aquillion Firefangledfeathers AndreJustAndre SPECIFICO XOR'easter Darknipples et al. soibangla (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Though I haven't looked into the AE thread, I don't really feel the need to. Mostly, I need to say I'll miss seeing you in this part of WP, though I have managed to branch out a little to other topics on WP besides political or contentious topics. We've all seen some of what can easily be described as abuse and targeting by bad actors on this part of the platform. We all try to find a way to shake it off and refocus, but it usually comes at a cost that requires reflection and time to regain proper perspective. Sometimes we end up taking a lot of shit that isn't necessary.

Some of us notice when we see fellow editors getting cynical and unable to find any joy in the work. We try to reach out and give each other the strength to let go and take a step back. This project can end up stealing a lot of time from our lives, and sometimes we feel stuck. This is as good a time as any to step back and take a break. I think you deserve to enjoy some time off. Thanks for trying, and I hope to see you around soon. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to work with you. Remember, there is wiki-life after topic bans. Productive editing may lead to a successful appeal in the future. All the best wishes. Andre🚐 21:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs you. Your insane work ethic and the quality of your edits is badly needed here. I am deeply saddened by this development. I hope you can come back and appeal your topic-ban in the future. Please keep in mind the standard offer and that this doesn't have to be the end. I often get frustrated here as well and need to step away to keep my cool. Bad days happen and this shouldn't have to define you forever. BootsED (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Soibangla, your edits on Virginia Giuffre include the injection of the comment that she recanted her statements, when nether source you provided shows this to be the case at all, and no source can be found for this claim anywhere as far as I'm aware. Can you please revert it? DavidAdamsAuthor (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@DavidAdamsAuthor: As soiblanga has not edited for nearly two weeks now since shortly after their topic ban, they are not likely to reply here; as they are currently topic banned from American politics they probably should not either discuss this edit or make the edit you request. I suggest that you continue this discussion at Talk:Virginia Giuffre (where I have replied to your comments) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you still check this page so hopefully you get this.

You're very welcome, providing my take on the situation was the least I could do. I was very sorry to see you get pushed away and consider you to have been a valuable and necessary editor who made the sort of edits I lacked the courage and sourcing to make myself, even if you did get a bit too acerbic/prickly at times.

Hoping you can come back someday - Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Nobody was pushed away; retirement was soibangla's choice. (I did the same awhile back, without any topic ban, then came back semi-retired after a year. Ultimately, I just couldn't bring myself to put Wikipedia behind me completely.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election is an article with numerous problems, including excessive citations. Please remove some of your citations, particularly those to middling sources and opinion articles. 1101 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

1101 (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

there are several editors who are distorting the truth with impunity. I would seek to stop them, alas I cannot. Oh well. soibangla (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, what is happening? I can only assume the distortions of truth are happening around some MAGA-related topics, no surprise there. I also just saw in the above messages on your talk page about a topic ban, is this permanent or are you allowed to edit again? This is wild, you have been quite prolific here over the years and contributed a lot to the project. I hope we can have you back here someday to help out again. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Soibangla: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

https://grokipedia.com/page/soibangla

what does it say about you? soibangla (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Come to my room 202 so I come open the door to see u walk bye ~2026-11719-93 (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)