User talk:72.86.133.127

July 2023

Hello, I'm Boud. I noticed that you (or whoever else who had this IP number in mid-July 2023) made a comment on the page Talk:Jorit that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In this edit, you wrote "his crusade to exclude this information," about another Wikipedian's editing, which is verging on an attribution of intent rather than a description of behaviour. Boud (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your ever so civil, polite, and respectful colleague showed up on the Talk page to insinuate that somebody ought to do something (ahem ban me) because something nefarious must be going on if I can understand a bit about his behind-the-scenes wheedling.

If repeatedly reverting every edit on a topic that is unflattering to Jorit and the Russian invaders does not count as a "crusade to exclude" information, then I don't know what would qualify as such. You're giving me the same patter I've heard over and over again from WP editors wrt other plainly disingenuous and tendentious WP editors. We always MUST assume good faith no matter how much blatant bad faith they show, no matter how they tie a page into knots. Funny thing, though: that putative devotion to assuming good faith can go right out the window in a flash when it comes to IP editors. Those people, the Untouchables, can be and are blocked and banned for nothing more than "being annoying" by being right about something a Brahmin editor is being wrong about. To those outside your cosy clique, the "assumption of good faith" seems more like empty cant than a genuine philosophy. It seems to exist to protect but not bind the Brahmin editors, and bind but not protect the Untouchables. I have little doubt that Mhorg would have been blocked and probably banned for vandalism by now if he were an IP editor who kept reverting useful edits because in his opinion they were "too much info". An IP who falsely states that a bucket of info has to be flushed because it's not found in the cited sources would definitely get kicked to the curb fast.

And btw I was shocked by your updated addition to the BLP debate page. I have never before encountered a WP editor who was willing to admit that he/she had been mistaken. The go-to move among Brahmins is to dig in on any position they've staked out no matter how untenable. So kudos for integrity. 72.86.133.144 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

And I gather from your objection to "crusade" that you haven't bothered to check out what he has been doing on the Italian wikipedia page for Jorit. Hint: it's the same behavior only more extreme. Here he is a few days ago deleting even the briefest mention of the mural. https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jorit&diff=prev&oldid=134523208 72.86.132.193 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

---