User talk:Aoidh

Problem user[edit]

Hi Aoidh, Yesterday I reverted an edit by User:DaquavionJohnsonSmith and left a level 2 warning on their talk page. But I noticed today that their inappropriay contributions at Redlands High School go back to October 2023 and have been reverted by multiple other editors as vandalism. Is it time for a block? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand'mere Eugene: I've left them a message on their talk page, if it continues a block might be necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit waring in Tamil genocide[edit]

Similar to the edit waring incident reported in ANB, I am faced with a similar situation were my removal of newly added content that is in disputed have been reverted by a user claiming that that my edits have been disruptive and accused of Wikipedia:Advocacy by violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. I feel that the reasons I gave for the removal of the newly added content is valid [1], [2], [3]. Please can I ask you to intervein. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be speaking for the other user but I had thought about reporting you to an admin user page for the same reason.
You appear to continue gaming the system despite the admin @Daniel Case calling you out on this very behavior in AN3 and despite admin @TomStar81 issuing 1RR warning in ANI. You have been trying to remove the same content for weeks now, this being your 5th attempt [1][2][3][4][5], despite three other users opposing your move and despite there being an active talk discussion on it. I don't see this behavior subsiding any time soon given the WP:SPA behavioral pattern. Admin intervention is needed.---Petextrodon (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Kalanishashika why are you determined to remove https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51184085 from the article? It's BBC– one of the most reliable sites on the internet. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio, I don't question the sources. Only the content. The content here is not directly relevant to this article. There is another article on this subject where is should be included. I explained this here [4]. Kalanishashika (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content is directly relevant to the article, it is relevant to the tens of thousands of 'enforced disappearances' of Tamils, which has been described by cited scholars as a genocidal act. Oz346 (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalanishashika and Petextrodon: I will take a look, but it may result in implementing CTOP restrictions to minimize disruption in the page or topic area. Ideally this dispute would be something that could be worked out without an administrator's intervention, but if necessary it may result in one or more editors being page or topic banned to prevent further disruption. - Aoidh (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh, the issue here is that the editors Oz346, Petextrodon and‎ Pharaoh of the Wizards, seem to be pushing content want and aggressively pushing out content of others or changes. I kindly request you to review this behavior, and advice no it. They don't seem to respect rules such as Wikipedia:Civility see [5] and I am trying to resoulve this in the talk page [6]. Kalanishashika (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question why Petextrodon is speaking on behalf of Oz346 and vis versa? This seems like a tag team. Is this why a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Okiloma#05_June_2024 was reported? Kalanishashika (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where am I speaking on behalf of another? That is a false allegation. If I find something objectionable, I will call it out. I object to your unjustified removal of government crimes and their repercussions on Wikipedia, especially as they are supported by cited sources. Oz346 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalanishashika Strange you should make that accusation right after I began my reply saying I won't be speaking for the other user. Anyway, I also asked you a question at the ANI report you filed but it was archived before you could reply. So I would like to post it here if you don't mind:
Anyone is allowed to edit any article here but I have two questions if you don't mind.
1) How did you find the Tamil genocide article given your first edits were about public figures? 2) Have you drawn any influence from the edit history of any Sri Lanka topics editor when you challenged the UTHR as a primary source; when you implied that a source must be vetted by RSN before it could be cited; when you gave explicit attribution to certain sources; when you asked third parties at RSN to audit sources used in Tamil genocide article? Thanks.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, I will not respond to these two questions here for the same reason I did not do so in the ANI. These questions I consider to be very personal, and I don't believe I have to respond to such questions, when asked by a fellow editor such as yourself. If these are asked by an Admin, that's a different matter, I will consider it. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalanishashika: Here is what I recommend: if you object to content in the article, start a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why the content should not be in the article. Do not comment on any editor or anything previously said, those are distractions and will result in the discussion derailing and nothing getting done which is exactly what happened previously. @Petextrodon and Oz346: if Kalanishashika starts a discussion as mentioned, return the same courtesy and focus on the content. Don't discuss any editors or things previously said and instead focus on the content. Article talk pages are for discussing the article, and given that this is in a contentious topic area, CTOPS restrictions will likely be implemented if editors are unable to edit in this topic area constructively. - Aoidh (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

86.44.48.70 has resumed edit warring[edit]

Hi! On 13 June you blocked 86.44.48.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring. I wanted to let you know that since the block has expired, the user has resumed edit warring on the same articles they were editing previously. For example, on The Garfield Movie they have made essentially the same edit five times since 17 June, all of which have been reverted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. CodeTalker (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker: I have blocked them for 2 weeks. - Aoidh (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aoidh&oldid=1230485491"