User talk:AukusRuckus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Gallery of PersonMansplaining

Mogumber

I decided to make Mogumber, Western Australia into an article to avoid the entire problem of there being a redirect to a DAB page. Those edit summaries were before I decided to make Mogumber, Western Australia into an article. Steelkamp (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, ... thanks, (I guess?) AukusRuckus (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You're making a fool of yourself. You should stop with the aggressive comments. Steelkamp (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section in the "Our Lady of Fátima" page

I have started a new round of discussions with Spyrazzle regarding the controversy section in the "Our Lady of Fátima" page i hope senior editors will keep an eye on the talk page arbitrate fairly between us, the last time i was banned unfairly for 36 hours by herecomesjamie for adding material not sourced, which is ironic because in fact i did source the material i added and it is the same exact sources Spyrazzle used to build his controversy section, if they were good to build the section why are they not good for a rebutel? anyways please help keep this fair and professional, Thank you all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

An FYI re WP:OR

WP:OR doesn't equate to "bad" or "forbidden." It just implies unsourced material that may be challenged and removed unless attested. E.g. the article on Earth states that it's the third planet from the Sun. There's a ton of cites to back that up. SOMEONE will complain that Earth is the first planet from the Sun, relative to where we are, when the planets aren't aligned. Common sense, but subject to WP:OR and WP:FRINGE analysis. SOMEONE ELSE will edit the article to say, "Earth is the planet on which we live." Again: Common sense and factually true unless you live on the space station or Jupiter, but not subject to WP:OR since you can find millions of cites that agree. Nonetheless, the cosmologists are in the majority re the Earth article; philosophers have their own article re the world in which we live. Me? I'm mostly concerned about proper semantics whether it's syntax, vocab, or grammatical usage. Happy editing! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

An FYI re WP:WALLOFTEXT

Word to the wise: Most editors eschew walls of text like what you've posted at oxymoron. I admit seldom having time or interest in reading such stuff. (Truth: writers like me can write faster than they read.) I'm not saying it's therefore a waste of time to post such text; just that you might want to consider whether your target audience cares as much as you do about whatever. In this case: You made an ill-advised edit. I justifiably reverted it. You inexplicably undid my reversion although you conceded my point. Next time, don't click undo. Just re-edit. Saves grief and extremely moot discussions. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Supporting original research and genetic pseudoscience

You are supporting original research and genetic pseudoscience. Are you the IP http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.223.72.183 who added that up in July on the article of Names of the Serbs and Serbia and are now fighting to keep it? You don't know basic editing principles on Wikipedia. Revert that once again you're getting reported.--93.137.145.118 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Mexican Republican commanders and leaders

Hello, I'm SuperSkaterDude45. I noticed that you recently removed content from Second French intervention in Mexico without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SuperSkaterDude45: I'm intrigued: Can you please let me know what content I removed? My intention was to remove only wiki markup (apologies if this made anything on the page go haywire - I did try to check this). If I removed anything other than the duplicate references that were emitting an error message, and the <br><br /> per MOS:NOBR, then it was completely unintentional. Barring some accident with my keyboard that I did not notice, my edit summary was entirely accurate and complete in every respect. The changes I made were also wholly in line with WP policy. I would very much appreciate your reply.

And anytime an edit of mine causes probs or queries, a quick "What was that about?" directed to me (rather than the templating), would be very welcome. Best wishes AukusRuckus (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

In This revision, somehow you removed all the Mexican Republican commanders and leaders from the infobox but other than that, that was around it. No worries though as I've restored them as of writing this! SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:09, 01 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not intended, and I somehow missed that it happened when I looked it over. Glad it wasn't too bad in the end. Thanks for it putting back together. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Notes

Historicist interpretations of the Book of Daniel

Yeah apologies re that ... I was going through the page history quickly with my screen reader and the first syllables of AukusRuckus and August.Cordova sound very similar. I didn't check the edit summaries, either. Graham87 15:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries, @Graham87:, that is very understandable. I was a bit disconcerted when I wrote my first ES, but I had guessed what had happened by my second ES. Thanks for replying, much appreciated. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Obdurate

Hi AukusRuckus. I do hope I am not in breach of some wiki etiquette by writing this directly on your talk page. If I am I apologise. I share your interest in the use of the word obdurate. I found the whole two sentences really quite riveting because they so succinctly articulated a really quite swathing criticism. My first stab at understanding its construction was that the judge, knowing that he was to go on to use the word refuse later in the same sentence, did not want to use the word twice. He was describing and criticising two different refusals - the stubborn, hardened (and possibly impertinent?) refusal "to accept the relevance of plainly important documents", and the refusal to produce them. My Oxford gives the example of its use - I argued this point with him, but he was obdurate. - says to me it is a stand-alone word, as the judge used it. Thank you for the points you raised. I don't think it is legal or archaic usage - but what do I know? regards Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jacksoncowes: I believe it's perfectly fine to contact someone on their talk page. I am certainly fine with it - very happy to hear from you, in fact.

Your example from the OED is interesting. As a mental exercise, I tried it with a common word substituted: I argued this point with him, but he was stubborn.; then plugged that in to the quote from the judge:

The statement that it is prepared to preserve documents – as though that were a concession – and the [*stubborn] to accept the relevance of plainly important documents, and to refuse to produce them, is extremely worrying.

[stubbornness? ... no, that doesn't work ... "stubborn refusal"? .. hmmm, but then that's actually a meaning of obdurate].

Tried a few more:

We were by the fire, but he was cold

We pleaded, but they were ruthless

He sat, but she was restless

He had the *cold to [do something]
 →He had the coldness to freeze us in place.
They had the *ruthless to [deny or similar]
 →They had the ruthlessness to deny us [or do something dastardly].
She had the *restless to burn off energy.
 →She had the restlessness to burn off energy.

Silly, but just to illustrate my initial confusion.

It's certainly correct, as the judge has it; I was mildly surprised that I had not run across that usage before. The suppleness of language!

Wholeheartedly agree with your summation of the judge's criticism: scathing indeed. Does not seem to have resulted in the responsible parties feeling overly chastened, sadly. (IMO!) AukusRuckus (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If I might intrude, I've seen the noun "obduration" in print from time to time. It's borderline-archaic. Hope this is not off-topic.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Not an intrusion, @Quisqualis, glad to hear from you. A clearly "noun-like" word, if you'll forgive the silly expression, is more what I would have expected to see in the judge's phrase. Obdurate just seems so adjective-y. More along the lines of obduracy or obdurateness [bleah, no, that's awful], though. Obduration has the sense of a blockage or stubbornness, "hardness of heart", I see from your link to Wiktionary, so the relationship is clear. Where do you run across it? In older texts, or is it in some specialised field? AukusRuckus (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It probably goes back to childhood reading in the US. My dad would tend to check out older children's books for us; many classics were from the UK. Surprised I still remember it!

There is a Teahouse poster who uses the word "connexion", which I always thought was sort of 18th-century. Is that spelling typical in the British Isles any longer?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Quisqualis: Using connexion is, I think, definitely a quirk of that Teahouse poster. Quite an adorable quirk; but the last time I saw that form of the word was when reading Jane Austen. So I'd say, yes, an 18th-century spelling. BTW, I am not in the British Isles, although here in Aus we do tend to lean towards British spellings, for the most part.

(Long pause since you mentioned this, sorry; I've been off the air for a bit, and prior had a storm-in-a-teacup issue on WP I was dealing [badly!] with.) Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Quisqualis (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

LGBT rights in UAE editing

As you may have seen at Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates, User:Lmharding recently made this edit where they said this: "Also, tell me your avccount martinevans123 and AukusRuckus seem to edit in a very similar way. Can you explain that? It appears like you might be socing. I might see if this is true. After it it would not be the first time martinevans has been banned so I wouldn't be shocked." So you have effectively been accused of being my sockpuppet, and/or vice versa. I have now posted at User talk:Lmharding with a request for them to either officially report or retract this accusation. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, @Martinevans123. I have seen that now and replied. Anyone with half an eye can see such a suggestion is laughable. For sheer entertainment value, I would almost like them to go to the sock puppetry reporting thingy. But it would be unfair to the Admins there to waste their time. That user is becoming a huge time sink for me and others, as it is. I tried to get them to withdraw when they said I was "bullying", but they doubled-down instead. I see now there's many instances of them flinging such crap at all and sundry. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it might be a slight waste of time. But it would at least expose this user's general approach to wider scrutiny. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I felt quite lonely when I was accused of bullying by them, so getting more eyes on to the user's behaviour is worth it. They regularly use "vandal" in reverting edits, to well-meaning editors. It's disheartening. I do not think it's a waste of time to try to get them to behave better; I only meant that I should not wish the user on to the poor people at the admin noticeboards, just for my own entertainment!

@M123, also, I idly wondered about an issue elsewhere on my tp, but in trying to be semi-discreet may have disguised it. If you can't make head nor tail of it, let me know and I will be less opaque. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I am, of course, fully expecting the request I posted at User talk:Lmharding to be immediately reverted with an edit summary such as "intimidation", etc. But, as far as I am concerned, there are two options for them:

1. To withdraw the accusation by redacting with a strike-through and clear explanation.
2. To formally report the accusation at an appropriate venue (WP:AN/I might be most suitable).

Regards Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Making a separate thing

Not wishing to take a leaf out of their book at all, but my eye keeps being drawn to older discussions up-page from our current postings on a sometimes visited talk page (and also on other, similar, pages). Around 2019 there's some arguments, some of which include you (@M123 what a stalwart!), which seem redolent, in content and style, of lmh's posts. That earlier user also appeared fixated with vigilante actions and death penalties being placed in infoboxes, across many LGBT articles. I've been thinking about it for some time, but as I may be seeing skullduggery where there's just normal, common-or-garden aggravating behaviour, I did not know where I might ask for another opinion. Would you be willing to take a look and tell me what you think? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the same old arguments have been going there on since at least 2016 when an IP posted: "There's no evidence that this is applied and no sources. Cornell's centre on the death penalty does not list it as an offence that incurs the death penalty in their comprehensive list.... There are no extant cases of execution for this either." And talking of sockpuppets... ah, look what User:Moneyspender turned out to be.... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

p.s. I notice that User:Moneyspender had quite a distinctive use of lower case letters and pattern of mis-spellings. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I see you both have contradicted yourselves and hypocritically falsely claimed I was an alt while getting mad at me for just innocently asking why you talk similarly. How about you talk back your claims, then I'll take back mine and we can proceed? Cross them out with the cross out tool.Lmharding (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

LGBT rights in UAE editing, Part II

Lmharding stated editing on 16 June 2020, but then, after only 7 edits that day, took a break until 25 November 2021. Not sure what they mean about "falsely claimed I was an alt". They also seem reluctant to ever use indenting in talk page discussions. Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates has proved to be a minefield of anonymous and banned IP editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: Which claims are these exactly? Can you be specific about exactly what you find objectionable in my post asking for advice and @Martinevans123's reply? Please quote from the posts to pinpoint where exactly you see the problem. I have no intention of going around in circles again, as you had me doing with your WP:CRYBULLY. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You [m123] said "p.s. I notice that User:Moneyspender had quite a distinctive use of lower case letters and pattern of mis-spellings. Just sayin'" implies that I edit like this other account and by saying this you're falsely claiming I'm an alt. Cross it out and I'll then I'll cross out back what I said about you possibly being socks. This is not crybully that was a flat out implication on your side.Lmharding (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC) [later addition by other editor underlined, clarifying identity of "you" ; may not be obvious from indenting. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)]

Lots of editors have distinctive use of lower case letters and patterns of mis-spellings, don't they. What do mean by "an alt" exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You have hatted my post at your Talk page to say "Handled". It's not handled. You accused us of being sockpuppets. You have not retraced that, nor officially reported it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That was an accusatory tone associating me with some other account and claiming I was that editor when I'm not. Take it back then I take back the sock comment. Lmharding (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Unlike you, I made no accusation, and neither did AukusRuckus. Are you unable to indent? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Just also have to note, in case it had escaped you, @Lmharding, that you are the only editor to explicitly draw a link between M123's posts in above section and your user account, thereby making such a link overt and public. No random visitor would have had the least idea. We were trying to avoid just that type of open mention. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a few things here I would like to cover, but I want to do it bit-by-bit to avoid getting things confused. See subsections below. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Asking for another editor's view

long: always trying to block holes before they've even been poked

I am, in WP terms, quite new. Maybe there's many such coincidences, but I have been concerned about certain consistent editing patterns for some time. There's similar arguments for inclusion and non-inclusion of things like non-legal penalties, going back a long way. I do not automatically think I am always right, though, so I tried to get over my worries, and let it go. What brought my concerns to the fore was continued lack of consideration for me and others. When people disagree with @Lmharding, there is often some form of attack in response, e.g. use of ALL CAPS in edit summaries, aspersions like "bully" and "vandal", " canvassing", reverting talk page posts, and on and on. Such continued aspersions seems to be against WP policy and I, for one, find it very hurtful and difficult to deal with. It does—for me—interfere with my ability to edit and enjoy WP. Others may find that weak and wimpish, or whatever, but that's how it is for me. The final straw was being accused of socking, together with an editor who shared a similar view to mine. As I did not know what to do next, I quietly asked for advice about my (legitimate) concerns from a long-term editor, who did not bite my head off. @Martinevans123 replied in a considered and discreet way. Questions were asked as tactfully as possible, and answered as tactfully. That is wholly different from the retaliatory, random accusations made at an article talk page, in order to shut down divergent views. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Retracting

looong version

Aside from the juvenility of your "take it back first, then I will", there is no justification for such a request, anyway. What would I retract? My request to a fellow editor? What would Martinevans123 retract? Kindly taking the time and seriously answering, with observations of ongoing disputes and noting similarity? @Lmharding: The discussions on this page between M123 and me are not even remotely in the same category as the deliberate attempt to smear or shut up others as on the Talk page. If there were any such flagrantly unfounded accusations—or any accusation at all—on this page, I would withdraw it without hesitation. There are not, though: No-one did anything like "claiming I [lmh] was that editor"; or "claiming I'm an ['alt'?]". I ask that you reconsider your actions—as you did not when you called me a bully—and retract your unfounded accusation. That would be something that would actually demonstrate your good faith, and is really required by the situation. Although I am very conflict-averse, I cannot just leave a second such unfounded accusation from you unchallenged, as I did before. I will ask for further assistance, if it remains there unwithdrawn. Alternatively, please report the matter. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh. Sorry, folks: Here is the TL:DR boiled down version, or refer to above collapsed for the blow-by-blow.

Basically:

1. No allegations of any kind has been put on this page; so no retraction.
2. If the accusation by Lmharding at the Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates page is not withdrawn, or formally reported, I will feel justified in asking others to step in. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I've read both sections and I whole-heartedly agree. I also agree with your conclusions above. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So we seem to have reached an impasse here. It seems it's ok for Lmharding to "innocently ask why you talk similarly". But it's not ok for us to complain that Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates has been repeatedly edited by socks and banned editors. Lmharding is refusing to retract their accusation that we are sockpuppets, and both of us do not believe we have made any accusations that need to be to retracted. So my proposal is that we give Lmharding a firm deadline - say one week from now - and if nothing is forthcoming, we then request a simultaneous WP:SPI on both our accounts and on Lmharding's account. This should settle the matter. Happy to discuss any other possible proposals. I am in no particular rush. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

See response in UAE page.Lmharding (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What a poison pen letter, @Lmharding. I cannot accept such a phoney retraction with yet more snidery: "Statement retracted, now stop spamming me." and accusations in your edit summaries and posts on talk pages, again.

It is completely against WP policy to do what you have done with others' talk pages. Please stop doing it; also stop removing posts on article talk pages. How long have you been on WP? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Not trying to gain consensus

Moved from Talk:LGBT rights in Texas

 – More appropriate venue

(In response to puerile: "You are the one who misunderstood and misread it. I'm not steam rolling anyone take that back, you're going against WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH" at Talk:LGBT rights in Texas § When did you respond?)

You steamroll me and plenty of other editors. You quote and misquote WP policy. You steamroll by undoing edits when you are not supposed to, and criticising people instead of the edit. Never a reply from you goes by that you do not mention something like 'You are just mad because..." "You just don't like...[insert how you are so correct and others are so wrong here.]"

You take things out of articles because there is a dead link, or because you have misunderstood the source, or even (many times), without giving a reason. You are unfriendly. You jump all over editors for the least real or imagined infraction, even though—and I cannot stress this enough—you do the same, and worse. I have never see you try to understand another's point of view. I have never noticed any collaborative effort from you. Your responses are invariably hostile.

For some reason you have decided on a particular viewpoint for LGBT articles, and are trying to insert the exact same material on every one these articles you edit.

I have expended my very last ounce of patience on your edits and behaviour; you are the last person to lecture on AGF: of all the nerve. You have more front than Bourke Street. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC) [1] I disagree, I'm just trying to put in info you want to shutter out of censorship I'm here to improve the article.Lmharding (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I wish to build a better article. Why would I wish to censor anything? Your source does not say that the SB1978 "nullifies" other antidiscrimination law, so the statement is inaccurate.

As you refuse to indent your posts, and I have practically begged you to do so on many occasions before, even explaining the great difficulty this causes me due to a visual disability, I will no longer be able to read or acknowledge any discussion posts you make that do not comply with Talk guidelines: Non-compliance. I will be following the advice there:

After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Other editors may simply ignore additional posts that flagrantly disregard the talk page formatting standards.

Also:

1. When and where did you withdraw your "bullying" aspersion, as you claimed at Texas talk page?
2. You said "look up; I did respond" but you not did do so until 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC), which was some time after my article changes and your reversion of my changes. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

A result? And continuing disruption

In case you missed it, it seems that User:Lmharding has now had a change of heart, for some reason: [2] But all the explanation has been quickly tidied away from your Talk page here. You may wish to restore it. It is your Talk page, after all. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Man, how is this user not blocked yet? They are showing clear WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR problems. I'm clearly not alone here based on what I'm seeing. Pauline Muley (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! Very strange. @Pauline Muley:

I keep promising myself everyday, I'll report them somewhere, but then I drop the ball at the last minute. </own issues!>

Two things you might be interested in (just my opinion, but I have a lot of info on their MO, now):

1. Pretty sure there's LTA involved here from a block evader going back to at least 2015.
2. Where you said: "Seems weird to be pro-LGBTQ and then subsequently remove mentions of sex reassignment surgery?" That's the impression I had too, but certain things now make me think "troll". AukusRuckus (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitely a troll of some sort, possibly to get other users blocked by pushing them to their limits or make themselves give up. And now look at them go with blatant disregard for 3RR once again. Pauline Muley (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Great. Lmharding's going at it again with their disruptive edit warring to push their own versions. Pauline Muley (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not troll WP:NPA and wp:assumegoodfaith. I assure you I am trying to make as good of edits as possible no one is perfect. Sex reassignment removal was an error. Also, you reverted me over 5 times as well, I had good intentions. Also, as a sign of respect and decency I expect that you be brave and tag me so I can see before trying to smack talk. Lmharding (talk)

See my new reply on the Singapore talk page and post grievences there, don't hide in the talk page. Lmharding (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No; that is not a requirement. I will never voluntarily tag you in my own talk page. I do not feel safe to do so, as you seem incapable of a civil discussion. You have insulted, belittled and berated me—and others—at every opportunity. I am fully entitled to reply to an editor here on my talk page, and yes, even including discussing my ever-mounting concerns about an individual editor. It's hardly "hiding", anyway.

Despite the fact that you have had several major misinterpretations of sources, you continue to be aggressively sure of every stance you take. You never reply to a civil overture with civility. For me WP editing is utterly spoilt as an experience because of these tactics, insults, lack of care and concern for quality.

And stop trying to turn the things you learn about WP policy from editors trying to reason with you, against other editors. Especially as you do not adhere to the policies and frequently misunderstand them. (Now using, incorrectly, the WP:BRD I asked you to follow).

Lastly, why would I WP:AGF, when you so rarely do? AukusRuckus (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

And you still haven't, even right above, fucking indented your post. Given my requests, and those from others, I can only assume you're doing it deliberately to upset. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Do I sense some slight frustration here? Likewise my repeated requests for the editor to indent properly have gone wholly unheeded. It really is the smallest of courtesies. I had thought their behaviour might have moderated after they struck out the ridiculous accusation of sock-puppetry and after their geolocation came to light. It seems not. I still have grave concerns over this editor's actions. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, maybe a wee bit? Silly really, I'm sure it only gives them satisfaction. I have to turn myself into the workshop yet again for further steam regulator maintenance. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Your "Do I sense...?" made me spray the tea I was drinking over my keyboard. Master of understatement. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Still waiting: LGBT rights in Texas

Lmharding [This is a copy of a post on the user's talk page; it's also at the article talk]

I am still waiting for you to address the concerns I have raised at the LGBT rights in Texas talk page. As I asked before on your page on 26 June, what would be a reasonable amount of time for me to wait, with the erroneous and wholly unsupported claim

nullified]^{[dubious – discuss]} by the 2019 Religious Freedom Act protecting "person with respect to whom a substantial burden on 5-14 the person's free exercise of religion has been cured"^{[disputed (for: Unsourced & quote not applicable) – discuss]}

still in the article, would you say?

blow-by-blow

There's a long effort on my part to reach some consensus. You responded on 14 March by reverting my article edits again, saying on the talk page: "Also, with consideration to this bill and what it allows, it seems like a viable and reasonable conclusion this law can be brought up and used as a defense to protect those with values that do not coincide with the LGBT movement. The law does state it protects those with a conscience whose religious freedom has been burdened. That's a pretty broad exemption with very few restrictions." I pointed out later the same day, that would be WP:OR. You did not respond on the talk page again (but made further unsourced changes to article) and reverted several other editors who modified this part, preventing any attempt to correct article (not complete list of your reversions to other editors making corrections): [3] [4] [5] [6] edited out by me, with extensive ES], 15 April 2022 Your removal of my edits on 17 April with the ES saying bullying is not the way, talk in the talk page to change this. You said to take it to the talk page, even though you never responded to my post of 14 March: Where you say: "this bill and what it allows, it seems like a viable and reasonable conclusion this law can be brought up and used as a defense to protect those with values that do not coincide with the LGBT movement. The law does state it protects those with a conscience whose religious freedom has been burdened. [my emphasis]" that is not our judgement call to make, here on WP. I do not disagree that it is likely to be detrimental to aims of the LGBT movement, but that is not what your claims are saying, and it's not what the sources are saying. We need a reliable source with a published opinion that states that these pre-existing protections are "nullified" by the 2019 law. By "far reaching", I mean that "nullify" implies that previous protections will have no effect now. No-one is saying that. And it would be strange if they could "nullify" federal law altogether. I am not a lawyer, though, and that's just my opinion ... but citing one (or articles that canvass them) should be the only way we can say this in WP's voice...but you did not respond to overtures to collaborate. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) You said I was "bullying", even though I waited a long time for you to answer, and you are the one that insults editors and ignores discussion or consensus. When I asked you to withdraw your rudeness, you refused: it was the way you felt, and you would not go back on it. Even though I asked you to reply on the tlm page of Texas, where you cast the aspersion, you decided to do so on the Sri Lanka page for some reason. Then, you told me not to "harass" you when I asked for an explanation. I said on the talk page on 15 June 2022: Misunderstood use of an irrelevant quote from the Religious Protection Bill SB 1978 about: any "person with respect to whom a substantial burden on the person's free exercise of religion has been cured" (which continues: "...by a remedy implemented under this section may not bring an action under Section 110.005"). This provision is to disallow legal proceedings by persons who have already had their problem resolved under the bill. It says nothing about "Nullifying" other protections, city, state or federal. (Discussion opened above 15 March #Nullified by religious freedom bill and maintenance tags on the page.) You continue to ignore these and yet block anyone's attempt to change it. — talk page, 15 June 2022 Again, you did not respond. When I made the edits to correct the article, you not only reverted them, you made a claim on the talk page] saying: I did respond. Look up". This was on 23 June 2022 , 2 hours after you reverted my edits. You must have known this was a misleading claim. Especially as you tried to get the article protected, saying Request for this page to be protected temporarily at least since a lot of edit warring keeps happening even while I'm trying to discuss it in the talk page. Lmharding (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC) To recap, I posted on 18 March and 15 June, before I made the edits to article on 22 June. You reverted my edit on 23 June, and then claimed you were "discussing" the edit: "(the tags cover this discretion discussion is still pending talk in the talk page I'm here to discuss it)", so I should not have made the change. After this reversion, you posted on the talk page: "Right now it could be used to block rights against protections in the few areas tha exist. There are no sources you can provide saying this isn't being done, I vote to leave the tags as controversial as you might call them now and see what other community consensus is. Two users is not enough to consensus to remove it. It is already heavily noted that this have your scrutiny and this will have to suffice for now.Lmharding" — talk page, 23 June 2022

Your latest uncivil and dismissive post, made on 26 June on the talk page:

"I'll discuss this tomorrow. Too tired of your nonsensical stalling tonight and it's too late in the night for me to put together a response/ Lmharding (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)"

You continue to ignore my posts, yet block anyone's attempt to change it.

So again, I ask you: How long should I wait? Until hell freezes over? Who is "stalling"? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Redacting talk

Moved from Talk:LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates

 – More appropriate venue

It's incredibly kind and patient of you to take the time to do this, @Mathglot. I think what you say above is very good advice, too. And I'm well aware I'm the main contributor here to the WP:WALLSOFTEXT. It's some misguided effort on my part to spark an actual discussion, even though I already know before I start it's doomed: I keep thinking if I just make a better, clearer argument... but that way madness lies! AukusRuckus (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus:, your collaborator here took exception to your last comment, which I can understand, and removed part of it as a perceived PA. I unfortunately had to undo it due to WP:TPO, but it restores some text which I wouldn't like seeing here if it were about me, and I understand Lmharding's hurt feelings. You could demonstrate good faith here by WP:REDACTing it yourself (do you know how to do that?) Let's assume good faith and go from there. Even this comment is kind of o/t, so can we all get back to improving the article and not sniping at each other? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually @Mathglot, I am devastated by this. I was just about to write to Lmharding to ask why they thought it was an attacjk on them, only to find out you tbinks so to. I THOUGHT I was talking about myself and not nyone else. I am acyaully wiritingin flodds of stupid trears,They have called me a bully a sockpuppet, sarcastic, a hypocrite "its not hard," you did nt read it proper;y and I asked abovve for a reset and apllogised: crickets. BUt it must be me if you agree. excuse above. my vision is deterir and my reader device is temp out of commission. I think Ill eave it now. Too much for me. Thanks for your kind help AukusRuckus (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

All is well, and I hope you're already feeling better by now. I didn't think it was an attack, just that it *could* be read in two different ways since the wording was subtle; you have to remember that in writing, one doesn't have the paralinguistic phenomena of tone of voice, facial features (smile, ironic wink, etc.), body language, and all the other things that give a hint about the speaker's intent (that's more or less why they invented smileys, and sometimes they really do make a difference). Anyway, don't worry about this, it's all fine, and if it's too much, just take a break from this article, and work on something else for a bit that's less stressfl. I still hope you come back to it, as I won't be able to spend too much time there in the short term (and I'll probably forget to in the long term), but if you think there's a WP:verifiability or WP:NPOV issue at the article, and don't feel up to dealing with it right now, you could signal it by posting a neutral comment at a noticeboard, like WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. As much as possible, try to make the post brief, neutral, and about the content: i.e., what the content says that is wrong, or non-neutral. There's no need to name specific editors, criticize anybody, or point out what they are doing that you think is wrong. What counts, is what's in the article, and any NPOV readers at that board will soon seen what's going on on their own. If you do name anybody (but please don't) then you need to ping them there. Good luck, and ping me or write on my Talk page anytime you need anything. Cheer up, it's all good! Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed version and disputed quotes

Moved from Talk:LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates

 – More appropriate venue

Will you acknowledge that I did not make up the quotes as you allege?

What "agreed version"? AukusRuckus (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I had said I think they were mistakenly misquoted and that I didn't see them in there as you had copied. I did not say "falsified". You can take that personally if you wish and twist my words if you wish but it was not meant as falsified. A third opinion would be fine, but the page should not be changed from the last edit I just did to avoid you committing 3RR although you are welcome to re-paste your version here in the talk page. Lmharding (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2022(UTC)

No that's fine; let's get the 3O, but I will be including the full quotes in the meantime, as it is a poor reflection of the sources, atm. I put those quotes and sources there. You removed them because you said they were false. It's disingenuous to say you did not accuse me and I should not take it personally. (Gaslighting not welcome. @Lmharding wrote: "the other quote falsely misquoted from Amnesty claiming..." [emphasis added]). At the very least, you said directly I did not check the sources. Amongst my many faults, that is not one I'm prone to. I am editing in good faith, so I will wait for other opinions. But, please, please, report me on the WP:3RR board if you'd like to; I would be most interested! AukusRuckus (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to indent your posts, please?

And your response to the #Refutation is where? AukusRuckus (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It got lost somewhere in the interrupted flow with other discussions being forced in between. Please wait to get the 3rd opinion. Otherwise I just might have to take it to 3RR. I would rather we handle this calmly here. Let's get WP:CONSENSUS. Lmharding (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: You don't get it: I want you to take me to WP:3RR. I realise you would prefer not to, but I would like it. This is me being plainly ridiculous. </delete silliness> Apologies. Changed. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is the "Refutation" response? It's lost? Would you say I was casting aspersions if I said what I think really happened there? (Of course, not an aspersion to the level of your WP:CRYBULLY, but still)

I "calmly" pointed out where the quotes were, you refused to acknowledge or interact with me until I asked several times. You had made a huge reversion of my legitimate edits, and you did not even have the courtesy to say why in an edit summary. I came here profoundly bewildered, upset and hurt, only to a get a very confident, and yes, "calm" assertion that the quotes were not in the sources. I am careful in checking sources, and take pride in getting it "right", so I found that a real affront; other editors are collegial enough to bring their doubts to the talk page, especially where it concerns such a massive take-down.

Even now, you will not extend even a small "sorry about that misunderstanding", or say you were wrong: Not even the hint, of a breath, of a small, tiny apology. Even if you did not accuse me of anything as you claim, it would be the courteous thing to do. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk page (Texas)

Hi AukusRuckus. I reverted this talk page section of yours because it was fully focused on user conduct and not on article content. I think those points would be reasonable to bring up at the other user's talk page. You might consider moving through the steps of WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. I'm sympathetic to your view at that article, and plan to get more involved in the content dispute. I feel bad about my removal, because the talk page has been so full of conduct matters that it feels arbitrary to start trying to follow the rules right now, but we need to start somewhere. I hope you understand. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah no, not really. I am drowning here.

I do understand the policy about "user conduct on user talk" generally, but in this case they're going to get away with [yet again] saying something pretty crappy and quite, quite unjustified. There it'll be, with no pushback, forever and always in the page history. If it were the first time, it wouldn't hurt so much, but they've done it again and again. If I say something on their user page, away from where they actually threw their aggressive little bomb, how is that balanced? I still sting from the "bully" they put up for all to see. I guess I'm a wimp and need to toughen up. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

AukusRuckus, I'm really sorry to hear you're feeling that way. I also would feel terrible, and I don't think you're being a wimp. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Firefangledfeathers: that's considerate of you to tell me that. I only logged on as I saw your post on Talk:LGBT rights in Texas.

I can't post on that article talk page just now. You are being so conscientious and helpful, though, neither do I wish to just ignore your overture to discuss. So, if ok, I'll just post a little here, in a subsection. Feel free to copy and post there if that helps / is allowed. Otherwise, look only at Talk:LGBT rights in Texas § Nullified by religious freedom bill until you get to Lmharding's post of 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC), then stop. It's about 5-6 pars. Still probably TL;DR, but they're not long pars! AukusRuckus (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahh! Sorry, I was a bit too slow. I see you added a little precis of the main saga yourself on the talk page, without "benefit" of either of the slugfest contestants! (intended as a mainly self-deprecating joke). Thank you very much for your thoughts. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Texas: effect of "religious freedom" bill

Re Talk:LGBT rights in Texas § Fresh start

There's been so many issues. I think the main unresolved one is an unfounded inference about the passing of a Texas bill SB 1978

To entries regarding discrimination protections, such as "Both sexual orientation and gender identity federally since 2020", LMH inserted the addendum "nullified by the 2019 Religious Freedom Act" in about five places, sourced to a Texas Tribune story. The source does not contend that. I can't find a source that says anything like it.

I removed the edits soon after, which was reverted immediately, so I tagged them, in April. I extended the info in the body of the article adding quotes from that same source that directly contradicts the "nullified" assertion. Nullification assertions removed by another editor in June and again, recently here, sticking neither time (i.e. reverted by LMH). Hope this helps. [Sorry: way more than 3-5 lines!] AukusRuckus (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Noticeboard

Moved from WP:AN/I § Major points

 – Adds nothing to discussion there

@Lmharding: Do you think I enjoy making myself a target of your barbs and accusations? I'm not doing this for fun; I hate being there on that noticeboard. Please just make substantive responses and stop attacking. (And no "searching" required, it was the very first one off the top of your history; I could put dozens and dozens of examples there). AukusRuckus (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Would love your input!

Hi @AukusRuckus,

I'm in the process of drafting a submission to WP:ANI about the sustained behavior of an editor you've had relevant interactions with. I feel that your input would be valuable in getting a clearer picture of what's been going on. Is it alright if I contact you further via email about this?

Thank you for your time and effort. LocalWonk (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

By all means, @LocalWonk. Please go right ahead. Hope I can be helpful. AukusRuckus (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I would encourage you to hold off on those reports. I have been trying to work with you and if there is justification that seems valid, I've stopped editing to change those edits. I'm ready to move on and move forward if you are. Let's have a olive branch of peace. Any edits you have reverted stay reverted on my end. Here on out, my promise. The explanations you gave for each are finally clear for me to understand and I have no further objections to each article as it currently reads. No further action will be necessary. Thanks. —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussions, Discretionary Sanctions Notice, etc.

DNS place by FrederalBacon (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

(Sorry for the lengthy post here. When I'm less rattled I'll have a go at editing it down.)

Hi @FrederalBacon: Thanks for your input at Talk:LGBT rights in Texas § Edit Warring, disputes, and Etiquette. I can see the "discussion" is getting nowhere; it is not, though, as far as I know, disrupting the project (only my peace of mind). My understanding was that I was engaged in courteous, good faith—if lengthy—discussions, with, at the most, only exasperation being shown in its latter stages.

It's with much pain and concern that I read I am apparently "bordering on personal attack". I have actually been personally attacked here and on other pages by the other editor, with no "bordering on" about it. Here I was, thinking I was showing forbearance.

At the risk of confirming your conclusions, I would like to mention some things:

PNN: Having 2nd and 3rd thoughts on this part

When I asked for help and advice at the Teahouse when the other editor said I was bullying, they were told they needed to "pick a better term". I was devastated, as I drew the implication that such things were ok to be said, or I deserved it in some way. The other editor had blanked my posts on the talk page (and later did so here) when I asked for a withdrawal of "bully", and the Teahouse volunteer mildly enquired if I would like my posts restored. (It was much less lengthy at the time!) I had understood talk page post removal to be huge no-no. Following that incident, from which the editor seemingly emerged confirmed in their knowledge that they could do such things with impunity, the editor's response in discussion at Talk:LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates was to call another editor and I sockpuppets of each other.

• I am too timid to report anyone anywhere, even though some things have greatly concerned me; or even to ask for WP:3O. The WP processes are scary and alienating; I find them intimidating. And in my arrogance I believed I could reach the other editor.
  • That brings me to the accusation of "bludgeoning": It's because it has being going on for months, with little input from the other editor, that I have written scads on it. (It's a failing of mine, but I always think I can present a better case. I hit the TL:DR more than the average). But there was never any attempt at bludgeoning; it's purely an attempt to be comprehensive. When I had not heard anything to my queries after months, I made the change to the article. It was immediately reverted with the summary saying "don't change while we're discussing." So it seems to be stuck: No-one (not just me) is allowed to change the disputed material (others have tried the same edit), but also, the editor wishing to retain the unsourced material will not engage in the discussion.

You noted you'd looked "at both talk pages"...and nothing in particular struck you in the comparison?

Have you seen the other, similar disputes this editor is involved in? With good faith editors such as Martinevans123, Evansturtecky18; Pauline Muley;

• see also
  • Talk:LGBT rights in Singapore
  • Talk:LGBT rights in Sri Lanka
  • Talk:LGBT rights in Uganda § Are "vigilante torture, beatings, and executions" penalties?
  • Talk:LGBT rights in Indonesia § Summary Table 2
  • the talk page of Eustatius Strijder
  • Talk:LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates

I am sorry you found the discussion had no merit. If you feel justified in blanking the page, I will understand, but that will still leave the same problems in the article and will accomplish what the other editor attempted to do some weeks ago. It is disconcerting to have gone along so patiently in these (several—it's not just one) disputes, attempting to be patient and civil for, as you say, months, only to have a third editor come in at the last gasp, when one of the editors has begun to be more forthright in defending themselves against fairly consistent slights and abuse (of me and of process) and insist on some meaningful talk. I posted a huge log of all the issues in dispute, from my understanding, in an attempt to summarise, move it on, and demand some endpoint; perhaps that was the bridge too far? I will collapse that most recent edit, if that helps.

A little testiness, and too wordy, yes, but it seems the sin you are taking me to task for is that I have patiently engaged in trying to improve the article and doggedly tried to discuss with another editor the issues. I am really struggling here to understand. Best wishes, and sorry for length (again). AukusRuckus (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "But there was never any attempt at bludgeoning; it's purely an attempt to be comprehensive." That's 100% correct. The editor in question has become a serious drain on time and effort. The biggest problem is quality of sources - both AukusRuckus and I think that legal claims should be based, as far as possible, on legal, or at least official, sources and actual reported incidents. The other editor seems to think that any source, such as a campaigning publication or a US undergraduate campus magazine, will do, as long as they contain the "magic word" required. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not just a single page dispute. This is a dispute across, at least, 5 articles regarding LGBT rights throughout the world. Texas, Sri Lanka, Uganda, UAE, Indonesia, from what I know. I understand there are concerns about this particular editor's neutrality and reliable sourcing regarding the topics. At this point, if multiple editors across multiple pages in the same general topic find the user's edits disruptive, then the place to attend to that isn't by edit warring and fighting on the talk page, the place to take that up is with WP:CBAN discussion. Is there consensus in the community, and clear evidence of disruption? And, is it one sided enough to avoid a return set of sanctions against the person requesting them? Then I'd recommend going to an ANI, as a concerned editor (I have no intention of going there at this point, Aukus and their willingness to step back shows this is not a dispute without end), and discussing the disruption. That's the way to deal with this. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, Aukus, I want to clarify one thing: I never accused you of personally attacking, nor being the sole person involved. Just, the total content of the messages coming in wasn't discussing substantive issues with the article, it was addressing issues with each other and what you had both said, which was beginning to border on personal attacks. I just wanted to focus on bringing the whole thing back to the content, and hopefully opening up the discussion to more people.

Also, I have noticed, this is a multi-page dispute on a couple of pages regarding LGBT rights. All of those pages are part of a dedicated WikiProject for that. Due to it being a multi-page dispute, I would recommend potentially bringing in people from the project for further advice, as they probably have some guidance that might help with the acceptance or rejection of certain sources.

Also, the DS notice above is only informative. I am not accusing you of breaking them by posting it. It just a notice that the sanctions do exist, and that you are editing in an area where those sanctions could come into play.

I appreciate the step back, and I understand the frustration with what is going on. I hope you are able to resolve this to improve the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, @FrederalBacon, but I am quite clear. I have done nothing wrong or inappropriate; I never imagined I was being characterised by you as the sole person involved; it does not disturb me to have the DSN; but the "bludgeoning" was clearly for me, as I am the main communicator (by far) on the Texas page. My only goal in discussing "who said what" was an attempt to bring the other editor to discussion. I agree it's past the point of usefulness, but I utterly reject any suggestion of inappropriate content from me, with the possible exception of my last desperate defence, which lays out the reasons I would not resile from "steamrolling". As that is a concern about the editor's editing pattern, it more properly belongs on user talk.

I struggled for a long time in an area I am barely interested in, in an effort to uphold WP's accuracy, and the first semi-"official" notice taken of the clear disruption is one that paints me with the same brush. That is not helpful. It is not kind. It does not pour oil on troubled waters. Importantly, it's unlikely to progress the matter towards a good outcome for the encyclopaedia.

I would love for more editors to be involved; that's what I've been hoping for.

The options for WP:3O and other mechanisms are well known to me. The editor's worrying behaviour over ~eight or so years, much more than just edit warring—a practice I have not indulged in, as I understand it—warrants reporting, well beyond a 3O request. It has been going on since 2014; I've only been involved since March! Seeking help at WP noticeboards, though, is beyond me, and I expect that the dedicated project members would have shown an interest by now if they were ever going to.

In the ongoing saga, at various points over the years, a stop has been put to it briefly now and then, only to resume a bit later. The editor will take a breather while the glare is on, but be back stronger. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC) [Update/condensed tiny bit: AukusRuckus (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)]

After reading through this a little more, if I were you, I'd ask a few of the other editors involved if they would contribute to an ANI with you. If you get a couple of editors who would be willing to join with you, especially ones where they have dealt with the other editor on a different article, in the same subject area, I'd file an ANI. I think this might be more of a topic disruption thing than an edit war thing. The edits are concentrated in one subject area and some of them are indeed disruptive. Stuff like this is significantly concerning to me, from an NPOV standpoint. Removing better source tags with that edit summary would indicate a specific problem with you. This has been a months long dispute, and I only went into the recent stuff, I'm sure there's a lot more. I think I fully understand the scale of what is going on, and would recommend further action at this point. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Now, with that said, be aware, you're probably not completely blameless here. The edit you made before they called you out by name called them into question in the edit summary. This was a dispute that went both ways, but ultimately, if there are multiple editors across multiple articles are having problems with one editor, there's a difference between being uncivil in edit summaries and on talk pages, and being disruptive to a topic as sensitive as LGBT rights. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobkennedy led to an indef sock block on Lmharding. I hope you feel some relief. I feel a bit, but also some fury. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, why fury, Firefangledfeathers? Thanks for the very welcome news. And much appreciation to you and all those who stuck it out, battling line by line for accuracy and neutrality! I know you have always done that and will continue long past lmh; you have more stamina than I do, I think. (Also, bouquets for whoever went the SPI route. Finally!) AukusRuckus (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Kind words! I also appreciate you for sticking it out in the trenches for so long. I get angry about time wasted on socks; not overwhelming anger, but it's there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that! Yes, of course. Anger, fury, very natural. A huge time-sink, and you have dealt with quite a few socks, I imagine. The productive effort lost in keeping such at bay, mending the damage. <Sigh> I had forgotten my earlier rage in sheer relief at your news. By this point, I'd passed clean through fury, into weariness and resignation, via confusion and a disheartened state of inertia [joking ... mostly]. All caused by one individual with suspect intentions and poor reading comprehension!

I aim to model my future reactions to any similar encounters on your very measured responses. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding is likely still around socking. I've come across a few suspicious accounts that have similar editorial behaviors that they do. Böses Buschwerk123, Kennardleone and Taxydromeio to name a few. Pauline Muley (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out; I'll take a look. (I am sure lmh will always sock.) AukusRuckus (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Jacobkennedy and 155.137.183.249

Hi AukusRuckus, if you still think that 155.137.183.249 is being used by Jacobkennedy could you please add it to the SPI report so that it can be looked into? Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this editor is back as Buger677 and they gamed by making 10 edits on December 30th, then coming back on January 3rd to edit LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates, circumventing to protection. Pinging @Callanecc for awareness. S0091 (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not WP:gaming please don't WP:BITE. I saw the conflict in there and offered an WP:MEDIATE solution. Please assume good faith WP:AGF. I am not related to anyone you are referring and I'm here to help the Wiki community. Thank you. Buger677 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

iI will also note that I do not feel like this is a fair use of moderation time accusing anyone who edits the page falsely and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Remembering WP:MONOPOLY and WP:WINNING, everyone can contribute without one user having the WP:LASTWORD and control over the page. Please consider this as I am here to be a good editor. Thanks. Buger677 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and requested CU for a sleeper check. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)