Hello, I'mTonySt. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,Stochastic terrorism, but you didn't provide areliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content beverifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your changewith a citation, your edit is archived in thepage history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.tony02:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bias enforcement reverted65.189.32.126 (talk)02:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did atStochastic terrorism, without citing areliable source. Please review the guidelines atWikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you.tony02:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

blatant bias enforcement reverted again.. if you continue to vandalize pages with unnecessary reverts disciplinary action will be requested65.189.32.126 (talk)02:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to addunsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did atStochastic terrorism, you may beblocked from editing.Squeakachu (talk)02:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources already on that page say what was updated, the phrasing was just made to represent what the sources say. It would help if you read more closely instead of regurgitating what some partisan troll is spewing to enforce bias. I am uninterested in political debates. I will be reverting your changes due to it being very obvious in the sources that the correction is warranted and source-backed.65.189.32.126 (talk)02:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources support the wording you added? I'm looking through them and so far I don't see any that describe this term the way you did.Squeakachu (talk)02:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onStochastic terrorism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.tony02:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Follow your own instructions then and stop reverting.65.189.32.126 (talk)02:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:65.189.32.126 reported by User:TonySt (Result: ). Thank you.tony02:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engaging in edit wars and then accusing the people reverting your vandalism is not other people engaging in edit wars, it's just you enforcing partisan bias without regard to what the sources in the article say. You're not particularly convincing, so, unless you have content-based disagreement based on actual sources referenced, I would encourage you to read the policy more closely.65.189.32.126 (talk)03:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of72 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Pera complaint at WP:AN3.EdJohnston (talk)04:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contest of facts bypassed apparently due to interjection of a false accusation of sock puppetry of another banned user. EdJohnston then proceeded to ban without a contest of facts or research into the accusation(s).

These events demonstrate the level of intellectual integrity of the process used to maintain articles currently in Wikipedia governance. Partisan bias is enforced organizationally in this community, at least in this event where a single editor squatting on a page can engage in an edit war to enforce a partisan interest, and then depending on the partisan lean of the interest, will result in pileons with false accusations to mimic a process that is not actually followed, as can be demonstrated at the link above.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Contest of facts was bypassed due to interjections with false accusations by user AstatineEnjoyer, who reverted the change immediately after a ban was levied due to those false accusations on behalf of the original filer.65.189.32.126 (talk)05:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've no idea what you're saying, but your appeal does not address the reason for your block, so I have no option but to decline it. You need to show that you understand what you did wrong, which led to this block, and how your behaviour would need to be different going forward to avoid being blocked. Also, seeWP:NOTTHEM.DoubleGrazing (talk)06:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

This talk page links directly to the interactions on Wikipedia that resulted in the block, with a chronological account of events with section headers and summaries for each incremental event and who it involved-- this is painfully obvious simply by printing this talk page, so it's unclear why you are not aware of the words typed here; and it was also explained to you in plain English in summary on this unblock request section in an easily verifiable way with those links demonstrating that everything I am saying is true and easy to read. Note that you are not the only intended audience for that demonstration, and also note that it was predicted, and that because it was predicted it was documented in that manner.

As to to "WP:NOTTHEM", I assert nothing was done wrong by me to lead to this block, and my links demonstrate that for a global audience that doesn't have the comprehension barrier you claim you are experiencing. I further assert that no behaviour on my part will change as a result of the block because it was an inappropriate block.

I also re-assert my request to be unblocked.

If there is a comprehension barrier that prevents sufficient skill to navigate plain English with linked, cited sources then please let me know what accommodations you require to simply enforce the rules and values you already claim to enforce on Wikipedia-- the operations of which are centered on explaining things in plain English with linked, cited sources.

I'm not expecting it to be lifted, but, we are certainly generating more documentation of how this process really works for people to observe when evaluating the political neutrality of Wikipedia and the operational intent behind enforcement of their policies when actually applied. I'm sure that means nothing to you, and it always does until it doesn't. When this happens, it never happens in isolation.

65.189.32.126 (talk)07:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only facts that are relevant to this block are how many times you reverted and how quickly, and whether those reverts met any of the very narrow exceptions enumerated at3RRNO:

• On the first one, it is inarguable from the article's edit history that this IP address was used to revert the same contentfour times in ahalf hour. So the letterand spirit of the three-revert rule was violated, equally indisputably. Since you do not from your discourse here appear to contest this, in fact more than once you have claimed responsibility for those edits and defended them, you have accepted this.
• On the second, the only truly content-based grounds for going beyond three reverts in 24 hours (or any other pattern that would be otherwise unacceptable edit warring) is unsourced or poorly-sourced negative information about a living person. The substance of the edits is thus not a defense and any facts based on that are not relevant.

Theedit warring policy states very clearly in its opening paragraph: "Claiming 'My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is not a valid defense." What matters here is not so muchwhat you were doing ashow you were doing it. We have talk pages for situations like the one you found yourself in.

If I were you, I would spend less time making unblock requests based on faulty logic and more time readingthis page so you won't find yourself facing down a longer block in the future.Daniel Case (talk)18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

There appears to have been a language barrier with the person that reviewed my unblock request.65.189.32.126 (talk)07:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope. No language barrier. I would have done the same thing. Nowhere does Wikipedia claim to be "politically neutral". Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia, as all sources of information and people have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors when determining what they think about what they read. You are free to read an article and disagree with everything presented, as long as the provided sources are being accurately summarized and presented with aneutral point of view. If that's not happening, that can be dealt with by discussion and reachingconsensus on the talk page, not edit warring. If you feel that policies are not being properly applied, that's a matter forWP:AN.331dot (talk)09:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

Thesource provided in the article says:

He is androgynous and with his brightness illuminates the world, hence his name, Phanes, "he who appears".... He has both sets of sexual organs (OF 134) and the phallus (or maybe the vagina) is situated near the anus.

...discospinster_talk 02:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)