User talk:Ryantheviking

April 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I noticed some vandalism to the American_Guard page and fixed the malicious edits and warned the offender per policy. Soon after, another person did it. I also warned them. Next I was blocked by another malicious editor. These edits involve slandering a group as "white supremacist" and removing the citation to the groups platform that clearly states they are open to all races and religious faiths. This is a politically motivated vandalism attempt. The groups Florida SAA is Philipino, and the NC state pres is a gay black man. It even includes the link to when they ejected Augustus Invictus for associating with white nationalists. Request removal of admin status for all the vandal admins and unblocking, and reversion to the accurate info and citations.

Decline reason:

Attacking other editors and not addressing your own behavior will not help you be unblocked. It also seems that you are here to promote your own point of view instead of working collaboratively with others to improve this encyclopedia. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Sorry, I cannot unblock you at this time. I will leave the unblock request open for another admin to review. Well, clearly you've been Wikipedia:Edit warring. That alone qualifies you for a block. Calling those who disagree with you vandals isn't going to get you anywhere. Calling admins "malicious editors" likewise. Use of legal mumbo-jumbo like "slander" cuts too close to WP:NLT. You might want to retract that. My overall impression is that you are here to push your own point of view and are not capable of editing in a collaborative environment. Please review WP:Civil and WP:BRD. After doing so and taking on board my other comments, you might wish to review and rewrite your unblock request. cheers, and happy editing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am not the ne warring. I made an edit to the page weeks ago that stood fine until people who are pushing their own point of view began edit warring. Just because they are Admins does not mean they are not pushing a view. Look at the edit history, they keep calling a group a white supremacist group after removing the groups platform citation clearly showing they are open to all races and faiths. What is slander? Google says "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." The group has people of all races and faiths who clearly state they do in their Platform. Is it collaborative editing to remove the groups own platform and call them white supremacists? That is vandalism. I did not remove the SPLC links, I showed what the groups own platform says, and left the negative statements people say about them. The SPLC even reported on them throwing out Invictus for associating with racists.How on earth am I "pushing my own view"? I am leaving accurate information with credible citations that are being removed and replaced with obvious falsehood. It is an obvious attack on the group by people who want to make them look bad, and the fact they are Admisn doesn't make it OK, in fact it threatens the credibility of this entire project. I challenge you to view the edit history and the groups actual platform and the statement made by them when they threw Invictus out, and then make the case that they should be called a white supremacist group and their own Platform removed in an edit.The fair and collaborative thing to do is to post accurate history about the group, which was not founded in Indiana, but in multiple states at the same time, and to post the group's ideology, citing their platform. Then post that critics have accused them of ties to this or that and cite those as well. I followed warning procedure for those who were pushing their agenda on the Wiki, and do not deserve a block. If the block is not removed I will seek moderation or some other recourse because you can't read the edit history and removed citations and think I am the one pushing anything. I am preserving the integrity of the project and attempting to preserve accurate information from vandals pushing an agenda

Accept reason:

Per the discussion below, I will unblock you. I do note that there is a second voice in agreement with you on the article's talk page, so I suggest you hash it out there and then edit the page accordingly. Thank you for your patience and willingness to collaborate. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Another admin will review this request. However, Wikipedia has no interest in what any person or group wishes to say about itself. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject. That's why the group's own platform is not acceptable as a source for its views. This group is free to describe itself as it wishes on its own website. If you have independent sources that describe this group differently than the current ones, let us know. You will not be unblocked unless in your request you stop attacking others and address the aspects of your own behavior which led to your being blocked, indicate how you will not do those things again and work collaboratively with others to improve Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am working collaboratively. I am noting obvious vandalism. I said the prudent thing was to list the group asthey are, and link their site, and post criticism and link that too. I cannot believe the flat out lie here, that Wikipedia has no interest in what groups say about themselves, you link the SPLC website on their wiki You cite the "Nation of Islam" webpage and their views as they describe them: Wikipedia describes it as a religious and political movement, it is also on the SPLC hatewatch list. Lets look at other similar group wikis. "The John Birch Society (JBS) is a self-described conservative advocacy group supporting anti-communism and limited government.[2][3][4] It has been described as a radical right and far-right organization." I used the exact template. Even the "self described". The group says it believes this, others have called it that. Cite the group website, then cite the critics. Look at the edit I made March 9, which stood for a month, its exactly like similar groups and cites both sides. I am being fair and accurate. Why are you lying 331dot? Why are these people attacking a group for no reason. Non-white members are talking about the vandalism on social media now. This is the group's Sgt. At Arms in Florida, Filipino Its absolutely slander, and you are straight up lying about how wiki pages are written and applying a different standard to this page than others. I can work collaboratively with anyone interested in the truth and not pushing an agenda through Wikipedia. This "Neutrality" Admin is a member of an opposing group. So I am 100% right, it is vandalism by a person with a vendetta against the group and using Wikipedia Admin status to further that. They need their Admin status revoked and the edits reverted. I will find the other pnes and I 100% bet they are working in concert. I am the only one with integrity editing this page and want this block lifted and the vandals sanctioned. Ryantheviking (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

We have some very strict policies on connecting users with off-wiki personal information such as Twitter, Facebook, and/or their real name which they have not previously disclosed on Wikipedia. See WP:OUTING. Please don't do it again, and remember that unsubstantiated claims against other users is also a form of harassment and is severely frowned upon. Primefac (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

So it is OK to call an entire group of people White Supremacists despite it being obviously false, and after making a claim that the Admin is a member of a rival Communist organization to back up my claim of vandalism I am harassing them? How do I substantiate vandalism based on personal animosity toward the page being edited without pointing out who the person is? They use the same username on twitter, its not something they haven't disclosed. Websites are picking this story up now. They are doing just fine at outing them,

looks like I will have more proof soon. At what point do any of you admit I am right and recognize my fair edits within guidelines?
 How about an Admin with some integrity ban the obvious vandal Admin, and unblock me and I will resume editing fairly and in the same manner as the bulk of legitimate editors.Ryantheviking (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the combative attitude isn't helping. You were edit warring, because you kept re-adding material instead of taking it to the talk page. I'm not overly convinced based on your tone here that you won't just start right back up again. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you look at the talk page? I did take it to the talk page. The people edit warring are the ones who changed it back over and over without discussing on the talk page. I am combative because I was blocked by someone abusing authority to further an agenda. And am being accused of doing the things they were doing. I noted each action in the talk page and none discussed it or wanted to collaborate. By "start it up again" do you mean restore my March edit that was there for weeks that was fair and kept both sides of the issues citations? My edits were legitimate and well explained. I am sorry if I developed a tone of irritation but snarky comments like...wiki doesnt care what groups say, in lght of the above refs, and the obvious bias I noted initially ----->In the talk page<---- that was ignored, my edits reverted...kind of irritating. I looked up the policy to report vandalism, read I was to warn them, and I did so. Then I got blocked by the vandals. Pardon f I am a bit peeeved here.Ryantheviking (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I did look at the talk page, and I do see that no one has responded, but sometimes these changes take time. Generally speaking, Wikipedia works on the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle: you made a bold edit, someone reverted, and now you discuss. While we strive to maintain factual accuracy and neutrality, invariably at some point we'll be trying to save the "wrong version".

My philosophy on controversial edits is this: if you get reverted, take it to the talk page and make your argument. If no one responds to your concerns (in a week or two) then you can make the changes and per SILENCE you can claim that your edits are justified because no one has contested them. It sounds like a load of bureaucratic silliness but it's the best way to proceed.

I am willing to unblock you on the conditions that you remain as civil as possible on talk discussions (no more accusations of vendettas or vandals) and you agree that if you are reverted again that you discuss the matter on the talk page before attempting to edit again. Does this seem reasonable? Primefac (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• For whatever good it does, I reverted the edits based on apparent WP:POV pushing, and did not respond on the article talk page because 1) I was busy at the time, 2) the thread you started there looked more like vitriol than a good faith attempt at discussion, and 3) I presumed you would shortly be blocked based on your attitude alone, and here we are.

Beyond that, this exact discussion happens about once a week it seems lately somewhere on some similar article. We prefer secondary sources over primary self-published ones, full stop. If there are other articles that are not doing so, then they need to be fixed so that they do. Whether Wikipedia describes someone as a neo-nazi, white supremacist, humanitarian, or social activist is, or should be based on the description found in published, reliable, secondary sources, and this goes as much for Martin Luther King Jr. as it does for Adolf Hitler. If the broad description of this group across reliable sources changes to reflect that they have broadly self-moderated and socially realigned, then Wikipedia will eventually follow suit, once the preponderance of reliable sources does so. But in this respect, Wikipedia lags behind the truth by design, not by oversight, because we follow the broad consensus in the preponderance of reliable sources taken over the entirety of the history of sources that are available, not the latest developments hot off the presses taken in a vacuum before they've had time to cool. GMG^talk 10:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Primefac I am willing to be civil and discuss the matter on the talk page. The issue here was that the other people swooped in on something I made a good edit a month ago, and did NOT put it on the talk page before making drastic edits. I reverted some, and left some that were cited and posted on the talk page. They did not respond, and reverted my edits. I would be civil with anyone but the people who were gangbanging that Wiki post yesterday were not doing any of the proper procedures you discuss. GreenMeansGo- I already cited multiple controversial groups, also listed on the same hatewatch site you or the other guy cited. They all follow the same template. They all cite the groups beliefs and website, and then say that other people/groups criticize them and then you cite that. Again for the purpose of rational discussion: The groups website was up before any of those other citations as well. Be honest here. There is no Wiki policy stating you don't cite the groups own founding documents and website. In fact almost all of them do. The citiation from the SPLC itself you left says the group threw out Augustus for tyranny based on ethnicity. So the article calls them a white supremacist group, and then cites their statement for throwing a guy out for associating woth wihite supremacists by going to Charlottesville. It also cites other articles that say "What are they, patriotic group or closet racists" (to paraphrase). Its disingenuous to assert that it was appropriate to remove all the other citations, including the article by co-founder joshua long as well from last year, not new, and call them white supremacist. When Neutrality made that drastic edit of month old content with no post in the talk page, the appropriate thing is to revert it and post in the talk page, which I did. Also appropriate would be for him to respond in talk page before reverting. He didnt. Other Admins or editors coming along should have seen that and started discussing in the talk page BEFORE reverting to the drastic change of a month old edit. I didn't even call it vandalism at first. I said it looked biased. It is given the information cited I just referenced above. Do we let radical Muslims edit the Israel page and call them the great satan and remove any info that doesnt say that? Comeon man, be real. The N******y guy is a Communist ANTIFA, if we can assume that by the hammer and sickle and open proclamation, and the group in question is anti-communist and protects political rallies from ANTIFA violence. Back to you Primefac- You said ":My philosophy on controversial edits is this: if you get reverted, take it to the talk page and make your argument. If no one responds to your concerns (in a week or two) then you can make the changes and per SILENCE you can claim that your edits are justified because no one has contested them. It sounds like a load of bureaucratic silliness but it's the best way to proceed." I did not make the controversial edit. Neutrality did. I did EXACTLY what you just described, I believe the same thing. Neutrality did not respond and work it out in the talk. He restored the controversial edit. So I reported for vandalism. He then contacted some like minded friends some friends to help. If random editors saw it they would see Neutrality made a controversial edit without a talk post and put it back where it was and let it sit for a while to discuss. Primefac, you and I are in 100% agreement, and that is why I am asking to be unblocked and for the people not following the procedure you outlined to be sanctioned. We are on the same page, please direct the admonishing towards Neutrality. GreenMeansGo- I will give you benefit of the doubt maybe you got confused about who made the original controversial edit, now that I explained what actually happened hopefully you can see that I was doing the right thing, and stop insisting Wiki doesn't post links to a group, I just showed they did. Its an encyclopedia, we show both sides and all available credible information. I also might add that the SPLC is of dubious credibility itself, and should probably be discarded as a source. Here is a wide variety of credible sources to prove that: https://reason.com/reasontv/2018/01/16/the-southern-poverty-law-center-scam</ref> As you said Primefac, this should be reverted to my March 9 edit and taken to the talk page if others want to make a case. I don't think N*******y is an unbiased editor and I have documented the claim. I think he should be blocked from this post, I know he is a long time editor and i am sure he is great at stuff he isnt personally and emotionally tied up in. I will be civil and CONTINUE to follow the basic premise you lay out Primefac, i just ask that others be requirted to do so as well. So if you could unblock I would appreciate.Ryantheviking (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

March 2021

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Proud Boys, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Proud Boys

Don't copy/paste from other websites, it's a copyright violation. You can just link. And this has been discussed before. Look at the archives. Acroterion (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, don't copy/paste in any part of Wikipedia. Please consider this an administrative warning for copyright violations. Acroterion (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I was not copy pasting from any website, but a hard PDF copy of a corporate filing Ryantheviking (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You were copying text in. Just link to the page you want to link to, putting single brackets around the URL, which will make an external link. Don't post PDF images either, they're going to be copyrighted. Acroterion (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ryantheviking, If you don't understand that copying and pasting from a corporate PDF is also a copyright violation, you may not have enough competence to be productive here.--Jorm (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Its a public document of the groups constitution and bylaws, do I need to put it in dropbox or something? Ryantheviking (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

And how is it a copyright violation to use a corporations constitution and bylaws in a discussion lol Ryantheviking (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless it's specifically and unambiguously stated to be in the public domain - a very narrow area, mainly restricted to the U.S. government - or licensed according to the Creative Commons copyleft, it's not copyable into Wikipedia, where all content is freely licensed. Just because you can see it somewhere doesn't make it usable. This is a basic requirement of Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a usable link but I am blocked from posting any links.

 Ryantheviking (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's a YouTube link it might be a problem, or it might be on a blacklist. Try to post it here, including the https://, in single square brackets. If you can't do that, then try plain text without the https:// and the brackets. Acroterion (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

DS Alert

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-1992 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.

--Jorm (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is this about? I am in the talk section having discussions with other editors...what sanctions have been imposed? Ryantheviking (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read the text of the notice: It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. It is simply an alert that discretionary sanctions are in effect in the topic area, and suggests you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)