User talk:Willbb234: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:02, 11 March 2023

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

June 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller a little uncalled for, don't you think? Under this reasoning I believe you should also ban Hob Gadling and Dave souza as they were also engaged in edit warring? Or do you only ban users you don't like? I understand you might be a bit angry, but try not to throw your toys out the pram. You're a big boy now and we can all behave ourselves. all right, cheers. Willbb234 19:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Go ahead and appeal, you certainly haven’t convinced me I made a mistake. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the block log says you can be unblocked once you show you won’t do this again. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I understand how these things work, thanks. Please can you tell me why you did this and answer the questions above. I believe I have a right to know. cheers. Willbb234 20:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Five reverts, no attempt to discuss your edits on the talk page. Doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller look, here's the thing buddy: I haven't violated 3RR and these reverts were made with reasonable explanation, a number of days apart. I believe you were looking for any opportunity you had to block me from editing that page. by the way, please let me know your pronouns as i don't want to misgender you. cheers. Willbb234 20:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So appeal. I’m male. Doug Weller talk 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

okay doug, I've had my time on the naughty step. There ain't much else to be said here because you don't really want to tell me what's up buddy. A little more would help. I won't do it again, pinky promise. cheers, Willbb234 21:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the boys seem to be having a hard time doing this so I'll make it easy for you lot. I understand that I have been blocked for allegedly edit warring with other edit warrers. I will not cause damage or disruption. I will continue to make useful contributions. cheers buddy, Willbb234 22:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your flippant attitude and reference to "allegedly" edit warring gives me zero confidence that you will stop edit warring. I am declining your request. Please use the talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. I'm sure you just didn't see that, twice. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Climatic Research Unit email controversy and Dnepropetrovsk maniacs) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 07:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is not an entitlement. You are still edit warring and your last edit included a personal attack. This battle ground mentality has to stop. If you want to be unblocked, agree to a 1RR in 24 hours limit and to stop attacking other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the personal attack buddy. Willbb234 11:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC) You should also block Ian buddy from editing the page cos he did the same thing. Willbb234 11:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telling an editor “what a load of shit”. And calling people who aren’t your friends “buddy” is not civil. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not personal attacks? Willbb234 12:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Although I don't agree with everything that Doug has said, I understand that I have partaken in edit warring and will not edit war on these pages again. In fact, one of the matters has been resolved on the talk page (Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs) through discussion and consensus. I believe on this page I have demonstrated that I am happy to discuss with others on these matters and will not edit war. On Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I promise that I will not edit war, instead choosing to discuss further edits with others, even if they are uncivil and throw false accusations at me. I believe this is the best approach as it avoids conflict between editors which can damage the encyclopedia. I also believe that the length of time since these edit wars has allowed tensions to go away and the dust has settled. I hope that the administrator agrees with me. Willbb234 21:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

per blocking admin below, "The request doesn’t seem to show good faith and doesn’t deal with the personal attacks, so I wouldn’t. We need firm commitments on those issues and no attempt to suggest others may be to blame." Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Willbb234,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Willbb234,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Unblock

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

Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please can I be unblocked. I have learnt my lesson and while I do not agree with the block, I can understand the justification behind it. I don't believe I have a battleground mentality and so this won't happen again. Cheers boys, Willbb234 14:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You do not discuss your edit warring and what steps you will take to avoid doing so in the future. That's enough to decline this request, but it's clear from your edits that you do indeed have a battleground attitude, or if you don't want to call it that, a lack of a collaborative attitude. That needs to be addressed as well. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@331dot: over 6 months ago you said you had "zero confidence" that I wouldn't edit war again and here we are in February 2023 and I haven't edit warred since. What you said was false. I suggest you look back at what you said before. Rejecting the request 9 minutes after it was put up tells me you didn't properly think out or consider your response or look at what you said before. I therefore have zero confidence in your ability to make the correct decision. That needs to be addressed. Willbb234 14:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please can I be unblocked. I have learnt my lesson and while I do not agree with the block, I can understand the justification behind it. I don't believe I have a battleground mentality and so this won't happen again. Cheers boys, Willbb234 14:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am concerned about Willbb234's response to 331dot's decline of the unblock, as I do not think this demonstrates an understanding of Wikipedia's policies about civility. I am also confused about why the editor wants to be unblocked from these two articles, when there are over 6.6 million articles that can be edited instead. I therefore do not see a net-benefit to removing this block at this time. I encourage the editor to show their editing and civility skills by editing other articles on Wikipedia for a few months, and in the next unblock request describe 1) Why the edits that led to their block were inappropriate 2) What they should have done instead, and 3) What specific edits they want to make to these articles. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have reopened your request as I was not aware until now that I had reviewed this before, so I shouldn't have now. I don't routinely go back six months to see(especially with a partial block which appears differently). I apologize. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that my "zero confidence" remark at the time was for the intial page that you were edit warring on, not necessarily the whole project, but that another article was added later because you edit warred there. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are only blocked from two pages. There are still 6,612,753 articles out there that you can edit. What specific edits do you intend to make to those pages, if unblocked? What do you intend to do differently this time? SQL ^{Query Me!} 17:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: I would like to be unblocked so I can use the resources at WP:LIBRARY. Willbb234 18:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read every one of your non-article edits since the block was imposed. I did so in the hope of finding support for the view that your editing is no longer affected by the problems which led to the block, so that you can be unblocked. As far as I remember I have never had any contact with you before, and had no preconceptions about you. I'm afraid that what I saw made me wonder, if you really "don't believe [you] have a battleground mentality", what you think the posts to discussions and talk pages of someone who does have a battleground mentality would look like. That is the impression gained by an uninvolved outsider, with no previous knowledge of you, from reading what you have written. You may like to think about that, and perhaps re-read some of what you wrote, trying to imagine how they might look to an outsider. Maybe that wouldn't help. I don't know. JBW (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow they're letting anyone become an admin nowadays. Willbb234 10:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal at Tucker Carlson

I'm sorry but this edit was completely inappropriate. We don't remove entire paragraphs just because somebody added sourcing, which is not WP:SYNTH. If you have a concern about that section, please address it or raise it on the talk page instead of blanking the whole thing. –dlthewave ☎ 23:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: maybe take another look and you'll see the WP:SYNTH. I suggest using your eyes next time. And by the way, what we don't do is add whole paragraphs of information on controversial articles without first gaining consensus. This was not done in the first place. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus. Your edits don't help. regards, Willbb234 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing about ONUS: Removing content with an explanation like "I challenge this" or "this is synth, look at your eyes" with no further explanation (which is basically the same thing) is not a legitimate challenge, it's disruptive editing plain and simple. That's why I came to your talk page to discuss your conduct instead of going to the article talk page to discuss the content. Politeness and civility go a long way - When you're ready engage other editors respectfully and fully explain your reasoning, feel free to open a talk page discussion and I'll be happy to talk about whatever your concern might be.

And unless there's a specific article restriction, editors are not required to discuss or gain consensus before adding content, even when the topic is controversial (which Tucker Carlson's disinformation is not). –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Tucker Carlson

Your recent editing history at Tucker Carlson 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; read about 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. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block from article namespace

I've indefinitely partially blocked you from editing articles. This is because

you're continuing to edit war in new articles after being partially blocked from two articles previously
your latest edit war includes exhortations for other people to discuss the dispute without making any effort to do so yourself
you are still including uncivil statements in your edit summaries while edit warring (see Special:Diff/1143703963 for instance)

You can still edit talk pages, file requests for dispute resolution, etc. To directly edit articles, however, you will need to explain how edit warring and dispute resolution work on English Wikipedia in an unblock request. Any admin is free to undo my block as they see fit, though they should probably consult Doug Weller about the previous block that I overrode. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks for instructions on appealing a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Any editor who lies - and yes, it was lying as the NBC source didn't say these things (I read through it twice) - should be ashamed of themselves. Lying, cherrypicking sources, and deliberately misinterprating sources is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than edit warring is. The editor should be ashamed of themself and I don't see how anyone would think otherwise. Editors who have an issue with this should debate whether the sources actually said these things as opposed to the way I dealt with the situation.

I am a constructive editor and I don't believe this block does any good to the encyclopedia. Regards, Willbb234 18:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I did attempt to discuss the new stuff. Willbb234 18:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also please don't talk to Doug I don't believe he is suitable to be an admin and his judgement is poor. I would encourage any admin who wishes to unblock to look at this independently and not consult Doug. Regards, Willbb234 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willbb234, I agree with your concerns regarding the text that was added to the Carlson article. It fails IMPARTIAL. However, the Carlson article is one where editors need to be careful. Many RSs are clearly presenting over the top versions of events that don't fit with the facts. However, if you want to have a positive impact on the article you need to do so via carefully handling the talk page. When it feels like a group of editors are "out to get" the article subject it can be difficult to strike that balance. The best way to do it is propose new text and sources. I think that could be done here. I have to admit, I do find it exhausting as do a number of other editors who are concerned about article pages looking like long attack articles. Still, it's hard to get consensus if you are blocked! In this case at least you can make your voice heard and object to the version of the current text. Springee (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 18:08, 11 March 2023 edit Willbb234 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 15,904 edits →‎Indefinite partial block from article namespace: add buddy ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:02, 11 March 2023 edit undo Springee (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 17,852 edits →‎Indefinite partial block from article namespace: Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 210:		Line 210:

	Also please don't talk to Doug I don't believe he is suitable to be an admin and his judgement is poor. I would encourage any admin who wishes to unblock to look at this independently and not consult Doug. Regards, [[User:Willbb234\|Willbb234]] 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)		Also please don't talk to Doug I don't believe he is suitable to be an admin and his judgement is poor. I would encourage any admin who wishes to unblock to look at this independently and not consult Doug. Regards, [[User:Willbb234\|Willbb234]] 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

			:Willbb234, I agree with your concerns regarding the text that was added to the Carlson article. It fails IMPARTIAL. However, the Carlson article is one where editors need to be careful. Many RSs are clearly presenting over the top versions of events that don't fit with the facts. However, if you want to have a positive impact on the article you need to do so via carefully handling the talk page. When it feels like a group of editors are "out to get" the article subject it can be difficult to strike that balance. The best way to do it is propose new text and sources. I think that could be done here. I have to admit, I do find it exhausting as do a number of other editors who are concerned about article pages looking like long attack articles. Still, it's hard to get consensus if you are blocked! In this case at least you can make your voice heard and object to the version of the current text. [[User:Springee\|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee\|talk]]) 20:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)