Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Black Kite (talk | contribs) →Quick request: cm |
→Topic Ban proposal: Reply |
||
Line 1,352:
:Support. The sources are all trying to insert doubt by weaseling around the issue (a common type of denialism regardless of the subject), but in good faith I'm unsure if that's being understood. Either way a than from the area seems an appropriate solution. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. There is obvious disruption that is occurring in this topic area as a result of Riposte97's pushing of weak sources which display a particularly strong bias. A TBAN would put a stop to that disruption. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*:There is no disruption. I have added one (1) factual claim from various sources. This claim, if you disagree with it, should be discussed on the talk page, not in an ANI thread without proper diffs. I note that you started [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Dorchester Review|an RSN RfC]] about one of the sources, the reliability of which is being legitimately debated. To suggest I've been disruptive for adding the source is unfair. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 10:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
== Death threats by 45.76.65.17 ==
| |||