User talk:Absadah

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Nina Jankowicz.

None of the published, reliable sources cited in the article say anything like "widespread public criticism" of either the Disinformation Governance Board or Jankowicz herself. Please follow WP:BRD and discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop. Absadah (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 21:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing that. You are the one who continues to reinsert material in a BLP from non RS's. Absadah (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Absadah,

You are a very new editor who was removing a great deal of content from an article, Catturd. However when editors who have been editing Wikipedia for many years, even decades, wanted to revert your edit, you claimed they had to discuss the reinsertion of these sources on the article talk page. It seems like this would have been a good idea for you to do before removing sources and content from the article in the first place! Do not ask editors to jump through hoops that you were unwilling to do yourself.

Be careful with BOLD actions until you are more experienced in editing on the project and have a better understanding our policies and guidelines. Instead of correcting longterm editors you should be going to them for advice. If you have questions about editing on the project, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs , if you don't mind me asking, what caused you to check? Absadah (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, though I hope you'll forgive me for being somewhat vague. I was contacted (see WP:CONTACTCU) with evidence connecting this account to a previous blocked account. I found the evidence sufficiently compelling to investigate that claim using CU, and in so doing I discovered that you were at the very least evading a topic-ban on MasterBlasterofBarterTown, which prompted my block. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me and being honest. Why wasn't this handled through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations isn't that how its normally done for transparency sake. I got to be honest, the interaction between these two accounts is extremely weak to non existent. Absadah (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to the first part of your message: I can't control where people notify me of their suspicions (and policy explicitly allows them to do so outside of SPI), I can only choose whether or not to act on them. In this case, I opted to do so. As for the second part: My assessment was that the evidence I was provided with was grounds for a check, and that the data I uncovered in that check was grounds for a block. --Blablubbs (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for letting me know. Absadah (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]