User talk:Gjivhj

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room, nor are they a search engine or chatbot. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Inserting accusations that other editors are somehow "protecting" Piker and insults about Piker themselves is highly inappropriate and not suitable for Wikipedia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

--Hipal (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

yeah. I'm already familiar with WP:NOTFORUM Gjivhj (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at talk:Hasan Piker. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The threat is uncalled for. I already retracted the part that could violate wikipedia's policies. Instead of threatening new editors for their opinions maybe try to engage with them constructively and help them understand how wikipedia works. Gjivhj (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gjivhj how about you read the big box at the top of the page that says:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous"

Guess what, you repeatedly inserting the claims you made fits that entirely. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

you violates the 3r rule. I'm going to consult with one experienced in regard to your actions, because you are clearly not being constructive. I'm ready to take the necessary steps in relevant instances if necessary Gjivhj (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Removing libellous material about BLPs is exempt under said policy(WP:BLPREMOVE). Please learn about our core policies on living persons before re-introducing the claims you did with a source (WP:BLP). Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The 3RR rule doesn't apply to WP:BLP violations, and also they haven't made more than three reverts yet, so I doubt you'll get anywhere than that.

However, I do think Rambling Rambler has been unnecessarily harsh about this. I don't think jumping to a final warning was appropriate. You're clearly making an attempt to follow Wikipedia's policies, for example with this edit.

I would recommend taking a look at WP:BLPTALK. As it explains there, instead of directly stating the allegations, you can link to a source that makes these claims without restating them yourself. Cadddr (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr the specific claims being made about Hasan Piker without any sourcing, and the highlighted edit to "follow guidelines" leaving the most incendiary claims present, necessitated the increase in warning level. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

There are two issues here: the aspersions about other editors, and the unsourced claims about Piker. They made significant progress by removing the aspersions. Before you issued the final warning, you hadn't even said that the claims were a BLP violation or explained why. Cadddr (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, it's not difficult to find sources for these claims: , . That's not to say it was okay to make the claims without sources, but it is a reason to assume good faith, since the claims clearly weren't made up out of thin air. (I'm not saying I personally think the claims should be added to the article.) Cadddr (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr The first warning explains the need for reliable sources, and I added the custom addition of "Inserting accusations that other editors are somehow "protecting" Piker and insults about Piker themselves is highly inappropriate and not suitable for Wikipedia". Beyond that the talk page itself opens with a long explanation of the living persons policy in addition to this. So repeating the insertion of them with no sources and then not removing them was justified in the warning level increase.

Also I'd look again at those two sources you provided (which actually highlights the lacking of RS to even bring it up) as WP:THENATION specifically carries a note warning about BLP (admittedly unusual for an otherwise GENREL source) while news.com.au appears to have no consensus as to reliability which means avoid it for BLP. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

This looks like a fairly clear BATTLE and NOTHERE situation, typical for the article. Note that the actual topic relevant to the article has been discussed at length. --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, I'm not arguing that it would be okay to add these claims to the article. On a talk page, I'm pretty sure it's okay to discuss sources that aren't reliable.

I see the point you and Hipal are making, though, so I guess we can agree to disagree about whether the warning level was too BITEy. I think it's quite likely that this is a BATTLE and NOTHERE situation, but I personally would wait longer before making that assumption. Cadddr (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr to be quite honest, going for a BLP warning was a step down from me to begin with as originally it was going to be a straight vandalism one given their account was created and then inserted claims about bad faith on the part of other editors in general under an edit summary of "assume good faith"... Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally, I saw it as an editor who was coming in very angry but who had a slight chance of becoming more reasonable once they realized how nice everyone here was. But that might be too idealistic of me.

I would have handled it a little differently, but you've convinced me that your handling of it was reasonable. Cadddr (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Fact Check

Day Creature (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)