User talk:Archon785

Welcome!

Hi Archon785! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! BootsED (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

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. 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! Thank you very much! BootsED (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I take a very dim view of bias. Please review WP:UNDUE to understand my concerns regarding the article in question before coming here with passive aggressive reminders of good faith. Archon785 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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.

72.76.106.131 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

3RR

Your editing history at Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia 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. Instead of reverting edits, please stop editing the page and discuss on the talk page to create a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a Third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you break 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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if it looks like you intend to continue reverting. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Your point is certainly taken, and I do not intend to violate the 3RR rule, but what can I do when my post on the talk page goes unaddressed, and my edit is reverted over "MOS" with no attempt by the other party to address the specific MOS issue? Archon785 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I replied on the article's talk page, and I believe it answers your question here. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the other post, but... if you and another user disagree, and you have tried to discuss it with them on the article's talk page and their own talk page, but they are refusing to discuss it with you, then that would be the time to file a report at one of the noticeboards (whichever applies to the situation). - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Funcrunch (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Bathroom bill. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I am most certainly not in an edit war. I am forming consensus by correcting errors that people have pointed out in my edits. A source was unreliable so I replaced it with one that was. A summary was inaccurate so I replaced it with one that was accurate. Please more closely review my edit activity before you make unfounded accusations about my activities. Archon785 (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:EW An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

Since you were already at WP:3RR, this comment was a genuine warning. If you had continued to restore this content, the next stop would've been Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and your edit summaries would not have mattered very much. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do put it on the Administrators' noticeboard. My edits were fundamentally different, and responsive (and reconciliatory) to the issues of other editors. It's unfortunate you do not comprehend this. I reject your warning as being entirely founded on a false premise, fed by your apparent animosity towards me which has inhibited your ability to critically analyze the edits I made. Archon785 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR doesn't care what your bias is, it doesn't care if your edits were "right" or not, that policy is in place to make it fair for everyone. Remember when I told you that if you have a problem with someone you needed to discuss it and/or report it instead of edit warring? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Buddy you really need to inform yourself of the details of this situation before you comment. These were not reverts, I don't care if the site says they were or not. I may have hit that "Undo" button in order to start the edit in order to restore the material, but then I edited it in order to respond to the concern brought up. You know that Wikipedia lets you compare the difference between versions of a page, so you can tell if there have been actual differences made, instead of just a regular revert. So I post a source saying something. Then someone reverts it, saying the source is not reliable. Fine, no problem. I then restore the content however I change it at the same time to add a reliable source now. Part of @Grayfell's problem is they did not understand WP:RS and that local Fox affiliates are not part of WP:FOXNEWS, so hopefully you've also posted on their talk page too educating them on that policy. Does my edit count as a revert for WP:3RR? It shouldn't, because it's not any kind of an edit war, rather I am responding to the specific criticism I received and correcting it. Only someone who takes the most superficial glance at the edit would say it's a revert, as opposed to me correcting the specific criticism that was made. Then you have people like Grayfell who don't understand WP:RS who think it's an inaccurate edit summary (that I've corrected the error by posting a reliable source) and reverting my correction and accusing me of edit warring and bias.

This is really a bit of a messy situation here where you really, really need to tell Grayfell to stop harassing me and learn how to properly review both WP:RS and how to tell the difference between different versions of a page prior to jumping to conclusions that just because someone started their edit with clicking the Undo button, doesn't mean it remains a revert as long as there are reconciliatory changes that are part of that edit. Archon785 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I looked just now, and I see you trying to add the same statement (or slightly altered) 3 times (including using unreliable sources and breaking WP:SYNTH in the process), each edit disputed for a different reason, with zero attempts by you at discussion in between. That is textbook edit warring. After our discussion last time, it was made very clear to you (and you agreed) that if an edit is disputed, the correct thing to do is discuss it on the talk page, not edit war. You were also warned for breaking SYNTH in that edit war. I see no differences between your actions then and now, trying to force your changes when they are disputed, with no attempts to discuss the dispute between edits (and once again synthesizing your own facts, which is also a big no-no). - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is such a disconnect here. I posted a statement which used a source. That was reverted on the reason that the source was unreliable. What exactly is there to discuss? The reason for the revert was clear. Thus, if I readd the material using a reliable source then it's fine, it completely addressed the reason for the revert. And yes Fox 11 is a reliable source, per WP:NEWSORG. That edit was then reverted due to being "article does not say that the trans student instigated the fight, nor that she was expelled." I then readded the material and removed both of those parts. Once again, I ask you what's there to discuss? I acquiesced completely to the reason for the revert.

You seem to want me to discuss something that requires no discussion, because I made the exact change requested. You also seem to want me to somehow read people's minds, that somehow they are disputing the essence of the addition even though they are communicating specific aspects of it they dislike. If I correct those aspects, it's not edit warring, it's building consensus by adding material that nobody should have a dispute with.

Please be far more specific with any criticism of my actions, because the broad strokes you're attempting to paint me with do not hold up given an actual examination of the events. Archon785 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear the "actual examination" shows you trying to add (basically) the same content 3 times. The first two of those times also breaking WP:SYNTH by making up your own facts. Rules is rules. If not for the edit war, assume this to be your final warning for blatantly breaking SYNTH. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah the "basically" meaning the same content, after having corrected the issues that other editors had. If they wanted the content removed entirely they should have said so, instead of pointing out specific issues which I then corrected. I question whether you are actually reading this, because it's not a complex concept. Also please be more specific about how I violated WP:SYNTH. Archon785 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

When you make a statement that is not included in the source, which another user reverted your edit for that exact reason, that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The source had claims within that the student instigated the fight by spitting, and that they were no longer attending the school. I understand it wasn't sufficient proof to say they "started the fight" and were "expelled" which is why I readded it while not including those two parts. I did not violate WP:SYNTH at all. Additionally, because the material was readded without the objectionable content, it wasn't a revert and WP:3RR has no application here. Archon785 (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Just because you made another edit not including the synthesized statement, does not mean the first edit including the synthesized content did not violate WP:SYNTH. Imagine that, "I didn't break the rule with my first edit because I made a second edit that didn't break the rule". - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The statement was not synthesized. Watch the video for the source - https://www.foxla.com/news/california-high-school-brawl-involving-transgender-student-draws-behavioral-safety-concerns. Right at the 14 second mark, "fight started allegedly by the transgender student." And from the source, "Since the incident occurred, District staff has been working to ensure the safety and rights of all students are considered and promptly responded to. We are able to verify that the student involved will no longer be attending King High School."

I understand this does not meet the high standards of inclusion in the article for the student having started the fight and being expelled, which is why I agreed to remove it. But it's not WP:SYNTH as I did not make up any facts. Archon785 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

(←) Did the source you cited specifically say the school "expelled the transgender student for instigating the fight"? Or did you synthesize that fact? There is no "I understand that's not what the source said, but it's not SYNTH", imply[ing] a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is the exact definition of SYNTH. I am done trying to discuss this with you any further, you're clearly just trying to argue your way out of following the rules here. Quit edit warring, quit synthesizing facts. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Refer this to an actual administrator if you must, I'm tired of listening to your bad faith accusations which I have repeatedly disproven. Stop with the false accusations of edit warring, and stop with the lies about me synthesizing information that is actually present in the article, even if it's not clearly elucidated enough for you. Archon785 (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

What bad faith accusations? Did the source say she was "expelled for instigating the fight" or didn't it? It's a simple yes or no question, no grey area to argue about. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

In the nicest way possible, what is your problem? You are talking about one edit, and when someone didn't like how it was worded, I changed it (so not sure where the edit warring comes in). You're on some huge crusade about one edit, where you can very clearly see why I summarized it as such.

If you watch the video as well as read the article, several people said the trans student was starting fights, out of concern for safety the school confirmed the trans student will no longer attend the school, and the reporter speculates that this may not be enough to satisfy the parents of the other students. What other conclusion could be drawn other than expulsion? The student just willingly withdrew from the school?

I don't know, maybe you're just pedantic, but this insane crusade over one edit where there is clear reasoning for why I said it, and changed it when someone didn't like it, is unbecoming. I have to insist you stop with this harassment crusade. Either report me to some administrator noticeboard or else quit posting your lies and accusations. Archon785 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me, but please do not make personal attacks about me. When did I lie? Where have I shown bad faith? We have rules and policies here for a reason, if you do not feel the need to follow them, you are welcome to go elsewhere. The fact of the matter is that you added synthesized content, your edit did not match what the cited source said. Instead of arguing about it, maybe just say "sorry, it won't happen again" and move on. The fact that you want to argue about it and split hairs "I didn't break the rule cuz I made another edit", or "it wasn't technically an edit war because I made minor changes (that violated policy) in between my three edits", or "it doesn't matter if I violated the policy because it was reverted", that is not how rules work. You violated the rule when you made the edit with synthesized content, bottom line. Either you respect the rules, or you will no longer be allowed to edit. Call it pedantic, call it whatever you want, but we call it Policies and Guidelines. I was only trying to give you a warning to stop violating the rules, if you want to self-report your violations to one of the noticeboards though, feel free. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Take your attention elsewhere and stop obsessing over my activities. Make a report to the admins if you are inclined but your input directed toward me is no longer welcome. Archon785 (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Your violating our rules is no longer welcome either. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome and introduction to a contentious topic.

Hi Archon785! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict, which includes discussing articles on talk pages, unless you are logged into an account that is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

If you have questions, ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Happy editing! Cinaroot (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

My edit was not related to the Arab-Israel conflict. If you disagree, tell an administrator, but don't come here with inaccurate passive aggressive notices. Archon785 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

No need to involve an admin. This is just a warning. Your edit relates to the topic.

I also recommend reviewing WP:CIV Cinaroot (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Your warning is rejected. You don't know what you're talking about. From the talk page of the article, emphasis added by me:

Stop: Parts of this page are restricted

Parts of this article are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction.

Parts. Not all. Parts. Archon785 (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Your edit relates to Benjamin Netanyahu and International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli leaders is subject to WP:ECR restrictions.

If you keep discussing this on Talk:Zohran Mamdani/Archive 5#Legal response to arrest threat, and violate policies, i will take you to admin. Cinaroot (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Buddy it also applies to Vladimir Putin and the International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russian leaders, and my edit is about the US relationship with the ICC. Go ahead and take me to admin, take your threats and "warnings" elsewhere. Archon785 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Can an admin warn the OP? Their edit was reverted three times.

They keep violating WP:ECR - See Talk:Zohran Mamdani/Archive 5#Legal response to arrest threat, Cinaroot (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

First revert was irrelevant because @Cinaroot did not give a reason. More importantly, it was not a WP:ECR violation because the edit was about how legal experts have said an American mayor cannot arrest a foreign head of state. One of the subjects that Mamdani had "promised" to arrest was Vladimir Putin, who is not subject to any Arab-Israel conflict restriction. This is just an attempt to keep any material critical of Mamdani's ridiculous political statements off his page. I urge administrators to inform Cinaroot that if parts of an article fall under ECR, that doesn't mean the entire article does, and a good faith, sourced edit that has nothing to do with the Arab-Israel conflict cannot just be automatically reverted, otherwise why isn't the entire page under ECR? Archon785 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Archon785 and @Cinaroot, knock it off. Just drop the stick and walk away this is not a good use of any of our time. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes they opened another thread here, after being told by two editors not to make further edits. This is disruptive editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zohran_Mamdani#Legal_response_to_arrest_threat_Part_2 Cinaroot (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Were you not just told to drop the stick? First, I cannot be "told" by two editors to stop as you have no authority over me. Second, and most importantly, even if the entire Mamdani article falls under WP:ECR, I'm still entitled to make an edit request, which I have. I really have to insist you stop harassing me. Archon785 (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright - that didn't look like an edit request - since you refused to acknowledge WP:ECR

If you edit main article on that issue or be disruptive in talk page - you will find yourself in admin noticeboard.

Stick dropped. Bye Cinaroot (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop posting your meaningless threats on my talk page. Either report me to the noticeboard or don't, but I do not welcome your incivility, and I no longer want to hear anything from you regarding your interpretation of the rules as you have no authority over me. Archon785 (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Then take it to the noticeboard @Cinaroot. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Archon785’s-_disruptive_patterns,_disregard_for_rules,_and_an_unnecessarily_aggressive_tone_that_approaches_personal_attacks. Cinaroot (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cinaroot (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

FIY This has been moved to here Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring across multiple contentious topics is really not a good look. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide any example of me edit warring. It didn't happen, I sought good faith discussion at every opportunity. Archon785 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This person was apparently offended that I did not bow down to their extended confirmed status[,] this is a comment that doesn't inspire good faith. Please refrain from personal attacks. As someone who has been blocked before, the best advice I can give you (if you choose to make an unblock request) is for you to not only address why you believe you should be unblocked, but you should also acknowledge and address what got you blocked. Lastly, maybe take a break from political articles. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 17:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't actually make any disruptive edits, but I was repeatedly harassed by Cinaroot. It's unfortunate you've overlooked that fact. Archon785 (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Violating WP:SYNTH is disruptive. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Here are two examples of me correcting actual WP:SYNTH violations, not your fake interpretation of the policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_2025_No_Kings_protests&diff=prev&oldid=1322367463

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBTQ_rights_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1322423097 Archon785 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The first link provided isn't synth in the slightest. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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

I don't know how to more clearly quote WP:SYNTH in relation to the edit saying the report was fake and false news, because it wasn't supported by the sources. Perhaps it should have been WP:NOR instead. Archon785 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps. I do see your point. But it is also appropriate to call an ace an ace in the deck. If what was said wasn't true, we should point out it isn't true. Especially since WP:FOX has Fox news for unreliable. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

But this one was blatant SYNTH, whether it was reverted or not. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Still with that? The source says the transgender student started the fight. The school said in the interest of safety, the student will no longer attend the school. Saying the school expelled the student for starting the fight is inductive reasoning, not WP:SYNTH.

I have no idea why you are so obsessed over one edit that I changed after someone had a problem with it. Move on with your life. Archon785 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

And nowhere in the source does it say she was "expelled", let alone "for instigating the fight", the exact definition of SYNTH. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I welcome you to explain to me what else could have happened. The student said they would willingly withdraw from the school? Give it up already, your obsession over this topic over one edit is legitimate harassment. Archon785 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The student could have dropped out, we don't know, and that is the exact purpose of SYNTH. To write that she was "expelled for instigating the fight" means you "impl[ied] a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (the first sentence of SYNTH). - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Who cares? One edit, is all it was. I was the one who changed the wording when someone didn't like it. Go on a crusade against whoever wrote this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBTQ_rights_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1322423097

They cited an HHS announcement and said "The Trump administration sought to enable healthcare discrimination." That is ACTUAL WP:SYNTH. Go ahead, go on a crusade against that person.

If you keep up your obsession over one edit that was long changed by me, I will report you for harassment. Drop it. Archon785 (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd reccomend you calm down and remain WP:CIVIL. Who cares? - you should. Everyone should. It's a Butterfly Effect of edits if we let even one slip by. Wikipedia will never be finished, its in a state of permanent construction, so we shouldn't add to the rubble. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Deflection is never a pretty defense, is it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss, as they say. WP:IDHT is easier than WP:CIVIL in discussions related to politics. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Love the irony of being insulted on my talk page by people citing WP:CIVIL. Request you ask these people to drop the stick. Archon785 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If you can quote me insulting you, I will gladly strike or redact the comments and not comment on your talk page again. But also be aware of WP:CASTING/ Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of insults directed towards you. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

References

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).

Archon785 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not much to say other than this block is unwarranted. There was no edit warring and no disruptive editing. I sought good faith discussion and consensus, and was only dismissive of non-admins trying to repeatedly harass me and wikilawyer their way out of engaging in good faith discussion. I welcome being provided actual examples of me being disruptive or edit warring as long as I have an opportunity to respond. Archon785 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2025 (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.

Archon785 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

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).

Archon785 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block isn't necessary to "prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" because there was no damage or disruption in the first place. The block was made in poor judgment with only a cursory look at the edits made. The consistent fact is that whenever I had an opportunity to discuss a proposed edit in good faith, I always took that opportunity. The only "disruption" was to editors who wanted to beat me over the head with their interpretation of policy as opposed to discussing a topic in good faith. I still am unaware of any "edit warring" or "disruption" as alleged. So, since I have not been edit warring or being disruptive, the block is unnecessary to prevent this from occurring. Archon785 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You violated ECR, you were warned about ECR, you violated it again, and you still continue to inist you didn't violate ECR. Consider this a warning: drop the stick or you may be blocked for much longer. Take a deep breath, step back, and go edit other things once this block expires. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 18 November 2025 (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.

Non-admin note: WP:IDHT is a poor excuse for an unblock request, considering the lengthy conversations above. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Your input on this topic, as well as anywhere else on my page, is entirely unwelcome. You trying to railroad me over the absolute slightest use of inductive reasoning in one edit because of your erroneous interpretation of WP:SYNTH is truly disruptive, and you deserve a block for it. Archon785 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Archon785, I recommend taking a week off and returning when you’re calmer so you can contribute more productively. Cinaroot (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The best part of this is that when you actually engaged me in good faith, I was glad to discuss the proposed edit. I just responded negatively to your multiple unfounded attempts to assert authority that you don't have. Any admin who actually reviews the constructive aspects of the discussion can see that good faith discussion is all I was seeking, and you sought conflict at every step.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zohran_Mamdani#Legal_response_to_arrest_threat_Part_2 Archon785 (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Which you should not have done (and was discussed in that thread) due to WP:ECR. Another example of the rules don't apply to you? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#c-HouseBlaster-20251105044300-Buidhe-20251105041900

Read that. WP:ECR does not apply to the entire article, only the parts related to the Arab-Israel conflict. Mamdani threatened to arrest Vladimir Putin if he entered NYC due to an ICC warrant, making my discussion allowable. Archon785 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh jeez—after multiple editors have pointed out that you’re violating ECR, why do you keep refusing to accept it? If you keep this up and keep attacking other editors - i will push for a total community ban. Please STOP NOW. Cinaroot (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If they want to give the Trump example, that is fine, but discussing anything about the Arab–Israeli conflict is off the table.

See, that's an actual administrator clarifying WP:ECR. My proposed edit had nothing to do with the Arab-Israel conflict, it was about the legal experts' response to a city mayor saying he would take action to arrest a head of state and a head of government due to an ICC warrant.

As I have repeatedly told you, take your threats elsewhere. Do what you have to do but I am not interested in you telling me what you might do in whatever circumstance. Archon785 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Archon785. Please note that our contentious topic are broadly construed, and your edits and discussions on the talk page mention Benjamin Netanyahu, the PM of Israel. I'd recommend you use the block to take a break and, when you come back, avoid all contentious topics until your account becomes extended-confirmed and you've learned how to better behave in these areas.

Also, please stop calling other editor's suggestions and advices as "threats". If this continue, you'll find yourself having your talk page access removed. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The Russo-Ukrainian war is also a contentious topic (see WP:RUSUKR) that requires extended-confirmed rights to edit freely and is broadly construed. The ICC warrant for Putin is for alleged war crimes committed in the occupied areas of Ukraine, so it's clearly releated to the Russo-Ukrainian War topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah I was unaware of that, thank you. Archon785 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

There are several of these contentious topics, such as Armenia/Azerbaijan, Kurds/Kurdistan, and Poland during WWII, all because of major conflicts on Wikipedia that have damaged the encyclopedia. While it's good to be aware of them, editors are notified, since it can't be expected that every editor will have those all memorized. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 03:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You clearly took on none of the feedback above and your disruptive editing returned as soon as the block ended. Further, your conduct at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jack_Schlossberg despite extensive feedback indicated you do not understand the role of consensus especially with BLPs. As a consequence, this block is indefinite. Note for any unblock request, I think this editor needs to stear clear from American Politics if not CTs as a whole. Star Mississippi 04:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

What an absolute joke. My editing was not disruptive at all. I tried to add something well sourced and relevant and was hit with personal attacks by someone who just wants the guy's article to look like his resume, and of course to you that's "disruptive." And when consensus couldn't be reached, I went to BLPN about it, and was punished as a result. Your judgment is poor, and your project is worse off as a result. Archon785 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Archon785, can I please ask you to take a look at Wikipedia:1AM? It's an essay written by an experienced editor, it might help to explain what's been going on. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It's a good essay, though it advocates for posting a RFC on a noticeboard (which I did) and finding reliable sources for ones position (which I did). And I was banned as a result. People replied to me with WP:RS and I reiterated that I had reliable sources and listed them, they replied saying it's a privacy issue, when the subject went on a national show to discuss the incident. What can I do in the face of people who are obviously arguing in bad faith? It's one against many then. Archon785 (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I wouldn't assume bad faith, that's the opposite of what you should be doing.

I read through the discussion and it honestly just seemed like you had a different point of view to everyone else, except you unfortunately weren't able to let things go when it should have become clear that consensus was against you.

Four different people tried to explain things to you but were unable to do so, instead you began to bludgeon the discussion to try to get the answer you wanted. I genuinely think you don't understand why this wasn't a suitable addition to the article, but there's only so much that other people can do to help you understand that.

It didn't help that this was a BLP article; Wikipedia has to err on the side of caution for its own safety. That means the rules are much stricter than they would be elsewhere.

One of the most valuable things anyone can learn, is the ability to walk away from something and the knowledge of when to do so. Remember that the people you're talking to are also volunteers, they were spending their own personal time trying to explain what the problem was. If someone is saying no to be malicious, they won't put that much effort in.

If it helps at all, I would have moved on at this point, but definitely by this time - you asked for an independent opinion and got one, but it didn't match with your expectations so you kept pushing. This paragraph is only my personal opinion and you obviously felt differently, but I honestly don't think you would have been blocked if you'd bowed out gracefully at these points.

You're not going to be able to win every argument and there will be times when something happens that you don't understand and don't agree with.

You can't control everything - no-one can. Some things you just have to walk away from, for the sake of everyone involved.

If you can learn and truly understand this concept, I think you have the potential to become a great editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You've posted a good message with respect, and I appreciate that. I am not inclined to be convinced about the "tried to explain things" aspect, because multiple times I was replied to with illogical comments, and I requested clarification. As I said, people brought up BLP, well I was never trying to attach any commentary to the subject's actions, solely to reflect his own words, as represented in reliable sources, as he has spoken about himself on a national show, and the primary sources are still available. Someone replies saying "WP:RS" and I reply that one of my sources is The New York Times, and that's worthy of a permanent ban? There was absolutely no good faith shown, it was just "shut up and accept this" and if I dared even ask a clarifying question then it's apparently bludgeoning. It's unfortunate this site is so repressive. Archon785 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)