User talk:Ubikwit: Difference between revisions

Good luck and happy editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at British Israelism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at British Israelism. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Look, you need to slow down and read some policies so you know the rules here. All those blue links in the messages people have posted here? Click on them, and study the linked pages. When you are back to editing, you will have a better understanding of how things work here, and hopefully won't run afoul of the rules again, ok? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm rather too busy with work over the next couple of days to go through anything, but there has been a somewhat cryptic response:

What's up with this? Ubikwit, I thought your edit was generally good, but that doesn't mean that we can't discuss on the talk page or that there is any vandalism going on. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC) from yet another user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Itsmejudith on the article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Israelism so I would like to simply touch base with that person and here what she has to say. Itsmejudith would appear to be generally not critical of my edits, incidentally, so though they may need some adjustment, the overall content is sound. It should be noted that the page in question has been categorized as: "within the scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism "Ubikwit (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

I am somewhat new at this contributing process, and admittedly haven't read many policies, but I have initiated discussions about the edits in question on two talk pages, and have found where the talk page to the article on British Israelism is, so I would like to continue the discussion there. Note that another use has already reverted the changes by KillerChihuahau to the article in question Ubikwit (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, and it's only 24 hours which is standard for a first violation of 3RR. This short block should give you some time to review policies and guidelines before you resume editing tomorrow. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide 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.

Note to Ubikwi and reviewing admin: I reverted myself. I did not mean to revert Ubikwi, I was going to block him and misclicked. I therefore reverted myself, as I have no dog in this fight. Another editor has reverted my revert, thus effectively reverting Ubikwi, not me. I dont' edit that article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is only for 24 hours, which will perhaps give you a little time to read the policies which you have so far not looked at. you have, beyond doubt, been guilty of edit-warring; your edits are available for all to see. As you dispute appears to only about the difference in conceptual meaning between the words "doctrine" and "belief", which words do in any case have a very similar meaning, and given that the entire article, in my personal opinion, is written about a very questionable belief/doctrine, is this really worth getting blocked for? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquit, this is the wrong place to discuss content. We do not care about content here, on your talk page, in the discussion about your block. Please read the policies which are linked, especially WP:V, WP:EW, WP:CON. Then when your block expires you may attempt to convince others of your views on Talk:British Israelism, not here or on anyone else's User talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FisherQueen. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:Paul Barlow because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. You accidentally put it on my user page instead of the talk page, so it got reverted by another user (hence the message above from Fisher Queen). I guess "You Can Act Like a Man" has decided he's in some sort of feud with me because of a dispute about the page on Richard III of England (he's one of those people who has decided that Richard was really a nice guy, awesome ruler and loving uncle, so the page should not say bad stuff about him). Unfortunately he does not live up to his user name. As far as I know he has no intetest in BI as such. I'm not sure which user is reverting your edits. Is it John C or "You Can Act Like a Man"? Paul B (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, Jon C does seem to be getting into a feud of his own (though you did confuse British Israelism with British Imperialism in the edit! [1]). I agree that the edit is not irrelevant, but might just be undue weight. It's a judgement call. Ideally this should be talked through as it's in danger of sliding into Hatfield/McCoy territory. I think you can get a bit too intense defending your views, which leads edit warring over pointless arguments over minor matters like the great "belief" versus "doctrine" dispute. unfortunately that's now leading to one of those unhelpful power struggles. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed the Imperialism slip, but left that out in the subsequent revision. The distinction between "belief" and "doctrine" is important, as I've tried to briefly explain, and as Doug was helpful in pointing out that one "can certainly believe in a doctrine". An individual can arrive at a belief in the afterlife on his or her own, but that is not so in the case of a doctrine, which requires promulgation and persuasion.

In any case, the genetic evidence is conclusive in this case, as in the case of the British. Parfitt has found genetic evidence linking the Lemba in Ethiopia to Jews, for example, but even that cannot be directly tied to "Lost Tribes". Jon C. could perhaps claim to be claiming that BI is irrelevant, as I don't have a source to connect them-yet-, so I just added the page to the See Also section. But his edits are always total reversions, not edits of specific points.

I live in Japan and am fairly well-read in Japanese history, including the topic of the Hata clan. My primary objective is to prevent the dissemination of pseudo-religious nonsense on these pages. There are a lot of Koreans that try to claim that the Hata were Korean, for example--not even related to Ten Lost Tribes--and Westerners that attempt to collude with the Koreans in bolstering their claims to unmerited contribution to Japanese culture. Both of those groups are sort of outsiders here in Japan, either not wanting to integrate or not wanting to spend the time and effort to learn the language, etc. Fabricated claims such as those can be used to attempt to cause divisions between groups of people, influence public opinion and may even have political ramifications. They are fundamentally divisive, and are promulgated with one or more objectives in mind. The case of McLeod demonstrates that clearly in light of his association with both Christian missionaries and probably the Freemasons.

I don't know what this guy Jon C.'s attachment to these topics is, but the fact that he is editing an article on the Hata clan is rather strange, because the Hata clan is a rather recondite subject even in Japanese history. The only connection is the fabrication about Nestorian Christians, Ten Lost Tribes, etc. It is also rather strange that the guy writes about Ireland a lot , it seems, and has a strange Hindu-esque image on his User's page.

I don't see anyway to connect the dots for these individuals in a manner that produces a coherent image. I've already warned a couple of these people that I'm not going to tolerate further edits without Talk. In light of the repeated nature of the edits on several related pages by Jon C., I doubt they're going to cease and desist without arbitration in the end.

I have a substantial library of Japanese references, and have actually done some paid translation work (at a very low rate) for the Wikipedia Kyoto Project several years ago, so I will contribute what I can to Wiki when I have time in that regard, but I'm primarily aiming to clear out content that is pseudo-religious or otherwise attempts to promote some sort of entitlement mentality based on false claims.

But most of the stuff on the BI article is of a lower order, structural nature at present, so I've ordered a couple of reference, including Parfitt, in order to frame the articles in a manner that should not need alteration and should facilitate navigation and ready comprehension of the subject matter presented. To many significant people are trivialized or glossed over, and too much frivolous stuff is strewn about in a manner that makes the article practically unintelligible. I will address these issues in a piecemeal manner with each edit, so feel free to comment and critique at will.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:VANDAL. I am not a vandal, and the onus is on you to make a case for your changes. I'll happily converse with you on article talk pages, but I'm under no obligation to inform you before reverting dubious edits or to keep your threats on my user talk. Please don't post there again. — Jon C.^ॐ 20:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the vandalism page briefly, and find Wikipedia's policies to be generally straightforward and easy to grasp. While I welcome your change in tone, please bear in mind that the matter at hand is the editing of an encyclopedia, and frankly, I consider your edits to be the edits that are suspect (and dubious). I have adapted my editing practices since familiarizing myself with Wikipedia policies, and will continue to improve in that regard.

Incidentally, all of your reversions of my edits have taken place on articles relating to claims of descent from the biblical Ten Lost Tribes. Let me assure you that I am going to find every page on Wikipedia that presents such claims, without specific genetic proof, and edit them in a manner that clearly represents the claims to be patently false.

Am I incorrect in assuming that you must have even learned about the existence of the Hata clan, for example, in connection with the false claims of descent spread by Christian missionaries, etc? No need to answer that, but please bear in mind that the Wikipedia database provides the capacity to review these interactions should an editing war or the like require arbitration. Furthermore, I believe that your Talk page is the place on this Website that I'm supposed to address you in advance when there is a chance of a dispute occurring.--Ubikwit (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hata clan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman McLeod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to a February 2011 version - after that a pro BNP editor made major changes with dubious sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman McLeod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ubikwit. I moved your comment at AE so it would fit in the normal place. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ed, thanks for letting me know.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

With this edition [2] you violated 1RR- 1 revert/24 hours. As this violation could lead to block from further editing and in order to avoid this I kindly ask you for immediate self-revert (your editions were made in 16:31 08.11.2012 and 14:31 next day)--Tritomex (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I believe you are incorrect, as the first instance was an edit, not a reversion. Secondly, the material is gone for the moment, as a tacit consensus has been reached to leave Jews and Palestinians off for the moment, though I will argue for the inclusion of Palestinians and the exclusion of Jews/Israelis/Israelites from the list. Since you haven't responded to my question regarding genetics, I assume that you are averse to attempting to give concrete form to an outline of the theoretical basis upon which you assert its relevance. Details are not what I was asking for, simply a concise summary of the basis of assertion of its relevance. I'm not going to address irrelevant genetics data at all except at the level that demonstrates its low order of significance with respect to the case at hand.

I see that Crock81 has left a revealing response to the delusional strategy he intends to adopt with regard to religious sources. His claim could be analyzed as an assertion that the denial of his biblical literalism would constitute a denial of his human right to freedom of religion, wherefore he assumes the prerogative to negate reality.

That is representative of the mentality of a group of co-religionists that seek to instantiate a past glorified by their religious texts at the expense of the present reality of an oppressed people being denied even more than their human right of freedom of religion. And that is one aspect of the impetus for the movement to protect indigenous peoples in the first place. I will respond to Crock81 with the a somewhat expanded version of the above-described content later on the Talk page.--Ubikwit (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Hello Ubikwit. Please see the result of this complaint. The List of indigenous peoples is being fully protected, and I'm leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you will force my opinion in your favor through threats, you are wrong. Threats you have posted on my abd user Eveldoer187 talk page. Also, in a way of WP:CANVASS you posted a message on user Yuvn86: [3] asking for support to enforce pressure on other editors in order to obtain your POV. The same pattern was used previously by you [4] You are labeling editors as liars, despite being warred [5] You are doing this, despite numerous warning you have on this talk page. This are all huge violations of Wikipedia guildlines--Tritomex (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are able to do your homework when necessary, even though you don't have the time to answer simple questions.

It is easy to see that Evildoer187 often asks you for your opinion with respect to my posts. In light of the nature of your responses, that would seem to constitute a violation of WP:CANVASS, not the message I left on Yuvn86.

Evildoer187 was the subject of one AE just recently, and he has not modified his behavior in response to that. You would appear to have stopped posting comments laden with religious references and your religious bias, which is good. On the other hand, since Evildoer187 continues to seek your comments in response to my posts, and you have refused to participate in a meaningful discussion by declining to answer my question directed to you about genetics, I've warned you as a preemptive measure against placing any further untoward comments on the Talk page. Your response of trying to warn me purely as a reaction with little cause is not very reflective of a change in disposition on your part.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Ubikwit, hinting that you will file WP:RFC/Us against other users is not a good use of your time. If you open an RFCU it seems unlikely you will find a second person to certify it. What is most evident is that you're having a content dispute at List of indigenous peoples. It is not a crime for someone to hold a different opinion from you. You've already been warned under WP:ARBPIA, as has Evildoer187. I suggest that you try to behave with great correctness if you don't want to be topic banned from this area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Indigenous peoples". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 December 2012.

I really do hope you take the advice - Administrators will not fix this; you need to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Crock81 (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Indigenous peoples, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Thank you and congratulations for your proposals of rewriting. They are very good and comply with WP:NPoV. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pluto2012. Thanks for the compliment and vote of confidence, I appreciate it. It' beginning to look to me like that lead is sort of all over the place and nowhere, and too long. There would appear to be a lot more work to do, but I'm finding editing the Wikipedia to be an engaging experience. I have used it as a source for years, so I'm glad to be able to contribute something in return.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

You are welcome.

Regarding your last comments. Apologize me if I tell you something that you are already aware of but never forget that wikipedia is not a reliable source. Only the sources of the statements that can be found in wikipedia can be (should be) reliable) and this has to be checked. That is why any of your proposal should be provided with strong and reliable sources.

Anyway, regarding the lead that you proposed, that seems to be the case.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Settler colonialism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Evildoer187 (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ubikwit. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 05:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Ubikwit. You have new messages at Evildoer187's talk page.
Message added 05:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You have broken 1RR i suggest that you will revert yourself.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct its a grey area but you edits have direct connection with the conflict.So your should be careful.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. I only reverted again in light of the fact that 3RR would seem to be in effect, and the editor that was basically ignoring the consensus on the Talk page has been blocked temporarily as a result of his reversion of my reversion of his reversion after giving him ample time to study the Talk page.

If you check the discussion on the Talk page, you'll see that I have tried to engage the editor in question, as have others regarding his insistence on inserting a prefacing sentence that deprecates the import of the sources, while not a single source refuting the position in the sources that are cited has been provided by him or anyone else. --Ubikwit (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia? Dixy flyer (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I made a few edits from an IP before registering, I believe. That was some time ago, I think on a page related to Emperor Komei, maybe those could be found without much trouble.

That is an interesting question though, are some of the editors wondering if I'm a sockpuppet?

Let me just throw this out at you. I am a translator that has done some paid work dong translations on Japanese history for Wikipedia on the Kyoto project for a company in Japan named Sunflare. That was a number of years ago, but if you are some sort of administrator, it's something you could check in case these people that have been harassing me are trying to claim I'm not me.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

There was no ARBPIA notice on the Settler colonialism until you posted it a few minutes ago, so I’d assumed that 3RR was in effect. I received a notice of 1RR from Shrike diff2 on my Talk page and queried him as to whether he was sure that 1RR was in effect, diff3 which he did not do, stating simply that I should be cautious. Otherwise I should think it obvious that I would have self-reverted. But perhaps it is not the time frame that is at issue? If that is the case, then it was somewhat misleading that Malik explicitly tells Evildoer187 that my reversion was not an edit war and then blocks him after he reverted my edit. That would have seemed to indicate that my edit position was not incorrect, coming as it did from an administrator. Are you trying to portray me as being unreasonable? Refer to the following discussion for the basis of the content aspect. Talk:Settler_colonialism#.22some_scholars_and_human_rights_groups_....22 After reverting and discussing with Shrike, I followed that up with an entry on your (Malik’s) Talk page explaining the content aspect of the article when I had the time. Since that article was not under ARBPIA notice it was not clear how to go about addressing the issue of the relatively innocuous but nonetheless POV biased prefacing sentence at issue diff1, but is should be clear from recent interactions between myself and Evildoer187 as well as Crock81 has been determined by disruptive editing by those two editors, as has been noted by other editors and one administrator, as detailed here User_talk:Deskana#Evildoer187.2C_Crock181. I should also mention recent terse discussions with Ankhmorpork, who has filed the edit warring complaint, on the Jerusalem page. And that was followed by a cryptic question from Dixy flyer on my Talk page and comments about my edit to the Jerusalem mention on the Capital cities article. I disclosed some personal information to Dixy flyer in response to that query, thinking him to be an administrator, but that would not seem to be the case. What exactly is going on here? You block Evildoer187 for 31 hours and then issue a 3-day block to me for edit warring in response to the way you handled the edit war with Evildoer, and you perform the block immediately after I receive the mysterious message from Dixy flyer—an editor I don’t believe I've encountered before. Perhaps I’m being paranoid, but that seems like quite a series of coincidences involving editors that I haven't engaged with heretofore. Ubikwit (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Decline reason:

This report makes it quite clear what was happening. As noted on WP:3RR, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule" which is exactly what has happened here. Irrespective of any ArbCom sanctions that relate to those pages, you were edit warring and as such the block stands. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide 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.

You were given notice of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions on December 10. That notice warns about sanctions on "pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Do you not understand that editing a section of Settler colonialism about the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under the sanctions?

In any event, you were clearly watching User talk:Evildoer187, and you saw that I blocked that editor for, among other things, starting an edit war at Settler colonialism. What made you think it was okay for you to continue the edit war? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

Well, now that I've reread the WP:3RR policy again I see that the my understanding of that was flawed an now grasp what deskana has been trying to get at.

The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

This may sound a little naive, but having become accustomed to always seeing the ARBPIA notice on a couple of the pages I've been working on, it didn't occur to me that the section of the Settler colonialism article was subject to those sanctions, too. In error I presumed that there was implied consensus on the basis of the Talk page discussion and two diffs that redressed the prefacing sentence diff, when it now appears that I might have been able to prevent the situation from devolving into an unwitting editing war by restoring the version by nableezy diff, thereby securing consensus on the opening sentence. I think that's what I should have tried, as the POV pushing magnitude of the sentence we've been warring about is not something I would want to bring to arbitration. In retrospect, however, it is likely that even if I had carefully considered nableezy's NPOV sentence, which simply states that there are several commentators that have made the asserted association, that I may still have made the mistake of making the edits I did on the basis of the circumstance that I have not found the editing of Evildoer187 and Crock81 to be in good faith, as has been noted. That is probably why I simply modified the first part of his own sentence, and kept part of the ending in the initial version of the prefacing sentence that I replaced his text with here diff emphasizing the lack of balance to his assertion, which implies that only some of the authoritative (i.e., reliable sources) commentators that have made asserted association, while others haven't, yet providing no sources for the "others that haven't". So until Evildoer187 produces some sources that make counter claims or criticize the claims made by the present sources, I think the sentence should be reverted to nableezy's version. At any rate, in light of the confusion due to my failure to adequately grasp 3RR and to construe "broadly" as extending to sections in articles not having the template, I humbly request that you consider my mistakes to have been in good faith and lift the block. Ubikwit (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Decline reason:

This warning was given which made clear that three reverts are not a right, and approximately an hour and a half later you edit warred further. You had been appropriately warned that a block may ensue if you edit warred, and you did so anyway. Your long posts about content in both these unblock requests do not affect the conduct issue, namely edit warring. The block stands. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide 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.

You edit warred, you were warned, you carried on, you got blocked. Given that, I highly doubt there is anything you can say to get unblocked. I would suggest you spend this time thinking about how to be productive upon your return. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@deskana and Malik, I understand what you two have said, and accept your decision, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about the state of affairs associated with this block. I think I've demonstrated that I'm capable of reflecting on my mistakes and learning from them, though I'm not sure that is the case for the multitude of editors that are prowling some of the pages I'm working on. The sequence of events that has led to this block is somewhat questionable insofar as all of the editors involved with the exception of Malik are editors that I've been engaged with one sort of content dispute or another on articles that relate to Israel or Jews. Eveildoer187 had posted a statement on his Talk page self-professing himself to be largely unsympathetic to anti-Zionists view or something to that effect, which he has since removed, not to mention his posting of an Israeli religious extremist group of some sort as a source for the Bedouin cause in Israel. Of course there's no problem with being a Zionist or whatever, but there may be a problem in being a Zionist and not being able to maintain a neutral POV on related articles, especially under the current state of events in the real-world. At any rate, this case has awakened me to the fact that I'm not their mentor or teacher here on Wikipedia, and I suppose I should remember that and not try to school them. Let the administrators deal with them is they are disruptive. As a preventative (preparatory) measure, I would like mention a budding content dispute on the Capital cities article, as the Dixy flyer has reverted an edit I made there related to the dispute and pending binding RfC at the Jerusalem article. He has not paid attention to my reference on the Talk page to the related dispute, which regards the status of the modern city as a capital, directly related issue. If that article, too, is therefore to be construed as falling under the ARBPIA sacntions, then please post the notice there as well. That has the makings for a content dispute case related to a pending content dispute case, etc. --Ubikwit (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

WP:NPOV does not require that editors have no point of view. On the contrary, it recognizes that "Editors ... naturally hav[e] their own points of view". See WP:YESPOV.

If you find it difficult to deal with editors who favor a Zionist POV—or those who oppose it—perhaps you should consider editing in another subject area. This is a big encyclopedia, and there's no reason the two of you have to butt heads every day. But if you do, I can only recommend to you, as I recommended to Evildoer187, that you make use of Wikipedia's WP:Dispute resolution tools.

I don't know anything about Capital cities, but if the dispute concerns Jerusalem of course it's subject to ARBPIA. The notice is put on the Talk page of some articles as a convenient reminder to editors, not to mark the boundaries of ARBPIA's reach. Dixy Flyer was notified about the ARBPIA restrictions more than two months ago. If you feel the editor's behavior violates 1RR, use WP:ANEW or WP:A/E to report it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here as a hoby, Malik, only because a few of the articles on the cite relate either directly or tangentially to ongoing personal research. Only a few of the pages I edit relate to Zionism, and generally speaking indirectly and in conjunction with theocracy vs democracy. As mentioned above, I work professionally as a translator, and a good portion of the documents I work on relate to legal matters, such as contracts, so I am highly attuned to nuances in language.

The phrase of the passage you quote is followed by the phrase

...should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable (my emphasis) points of view.

Restricting the focus to the scope of the prefacing sentence at issue in this case, notability is at issue. And further down the page is the bulleted statement

Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to(my emphasis) a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view (my emphasis) and a tiny minority view (my emphasis) by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

Without wanting to dwell on the case at hand in an undue manner, I think I have argued cogently that the refacing statement at issue is not in accord with the above-quoted passages. The other editor stated <blockqoute>I was going to replace those sources with better ones, as they were mostly just placeholders. I will get on that tomorrow. In the meantime, I made some corrections to the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC) more than a week ago, with no sources yet. Although I didn't handle the matter in the proper manner, I'd sure like to not have to spend time pursuing administrative solutions to every issue of this sort encountered on the pages in question. In fact, the debates I'm engaged in over naming conventions and language in general at the Jerusalem talk page relate to the same question, and the following statement of one of the editors representing the opposite POV from mine has the following to say with respect to the above-described points.

Great quote. As you may have noticed, there's no talk about having "a much higher degree of sensitivity" or "making efforts to accommodate all relevant aspects, representing the voice of each party in an equitable manner". All you have is making the word "Judea" verboten in any modern context. You're correct that what you're doing here is "of a somewhat different but not unrelated nature". I'm sure you'll get Nishidani's full support. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)</blockqoute>

Obviously this issue isn't going to go away and has been going on for years, as per the date of the quote referenced from the Nishidani statement. I have a fairly high degree of professional expertise in matters of this sort, not to mention the requisite educational background. The opposing camp is attempting not to engage or to exclude other notable POV, so the matter is before dispute resolution.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Malik, I was wondering if you could help me with a couple of questions in the interim before I resume editing, as I want to clarify the conformance with policy of a couple of points.

• First, on the Settler colonialism page, if Evildoer187 restores the prefacing sentence by reverting my last edit, I gather that would amount to an editing war violation on his part, correct? If not, as per my discussion above containing the quote "prevent the situation from devolving into an unwitting editing war by restoring the version by nableezy, thereby securing consensus on the opening sentence" would my restoring the sentence written by nableezy represent consensus and therefore not be a violation of 1RR?

• Second, on Capital cities article, Dixy flyer has reverted my edit and left a comment on the Talk page that would appear to indicate that he doesn't understand the comments I made on the Talk page and didn't refer to the Jerusalem article in reference o the dispute.

In short, the edit I made reflects the fact that though modern Jerusalem is a religious center, it is not recognized as a capital city as per the competing claims by Israel and the Palestinians. Accordingly, though he claims to fail to understand my edit edit diff, which comprised "Ancient Jerusalem" and deleting the parenthetical content (more than one religion) bringing the text into conformance with NPOV, as only the ancient city is recognized as being a capital, and the ancient capital was under Judaism, exclusively. The talk page discussion is as follows.

I thought it might be simple simple to prefix Jerusalem with "Ancient" to avoid the present conflict, but that doesn't jibe with what was contained in the parenthetical content, so I deleted the parenthetical content. The mention under the Origins" section of this article is unproblematic, but implying that to the present is problematic.

See the related discussion at Jerusalem talk page.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I don;t see what the problem is or how your changes improve anything(my emphasis). Jerusalem was and still is a religious center. Dixy flyer (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

While this issue relates to the dispute at Jerusalem, Dixy flyer has not been involved in the discussions there. Furthermore, he submitted the "Query" to my Talk page as to whether or not I have " ever used a prior account on Wikipedia?". After he left that question he carried out the edit, his first on that article. On the other hand, most of his edits would seem to be related, like most of the other editors party to the case of the current block, to editing articles related to Israel and Jewish topics. In conjunction with the above-described course of events, I'm wondering if he is a meatpuppet? Perhaps you could comment on your experience with meatpuupets? Is there any harassment involved in that sequence of acts? Why would an editor I have not previously encountered on Wikipedia have engaged in such behavior?

At any rate, I intend to clarify the rationale for the edit on the Talk page and then revert to my edit, based on the understanding that such a course would be compliant with the WP:EW policy. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify policy issues and make any general comments on my intended course of action, such as compliance with the 1RR rule, implications for consensus, etc.]

• Third, I see that you redressed him for basically accusing nableezy of adhering to the protocols of zion or whatever, equivocating that with an accusation of antisemitism. So I wanted to bring it to your attention that Evildoer187 has come very close to calling me an antisemite on the Indigenous peoples List talk page a couple of times in reference to some historical background comments I made relating to settler colonialism, Freemasonry, etc. He basically dismissed it as antisemitic conspiracy theory, implying that I was an antisemite. I provided a number of reliable sources (as well as wikilinks such as Christian Restorationism) to document that it is a viable topic in mainstream history with the exception of aspects of the connection between the crusading Templars and the modern Freemasons. I don't know what his educational background is and I'm not interested, but slights of that nature are basically intolerable. His intolerant reaction to views that he takes as antagonistic to Zionism or whatever his religious convictions are would appear to border on bigotry or a reverse form thereof.

I have done some related editing on the Ten Lost Tribes and British Israelism pages were I encountered a similar reactions from a couple of editors that would seem to be Christians. In light of the somewhat heated discussion between No More Mr Nice Guy and Nishidani on the Jerusalem talk page regarding perceived ethnic slights, it would seem that this problem is somewhat endemic on certain pages. For the record, These articles relate to my academic fields of study, and I have been working on some of these topics for many years. Are there any Wikipedia policies related to interpersonal friction due to religious views/intolerance and the like?--Ubikwit (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

What "Ethnic slights"? All i have seen is some people attempting to alter the Jerusalem article to more favour Palestinian POV, and undermine the article by making it non reflective of the reality on the ground. Not really sure where ethnicity or religion comes into the matters on the Jerusalem page at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BW, excuse my confusion you with No Mr Mister Nice Guy, as it was a conversation between him and Nishidani to which I'd intended to refer. I've corrected that in my comment. Also, the phrase "perceived ethnic slights" was adopted as something of an expedient to describe the interactions at issue. I hope it is not inadequate, though.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

12/26/2012 british israelism diff t--Ubikwit (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwi[reply]

I'm not a referee, nor am I interested in joining the "discussion" at every article at Wikipedia (even if that were possible). You have to act like an adult and learn to work with editors with whom you disagree. If you can't, find another part of the encyclopedia in which to work.

Personal attacks, including baseless accusations of antisemitism, are not tolerated, which is why I wrote so strongly to Evildoer187 about them. If they continue, please let me or another administrator know.

As I explained to both Evildoer187 and you, try Wikipedia's WP:Dispute resolution tools. If there's no way the two of you can work together peacefully, and neither of you will separate voluntarily, one or both of you may be removed involuntarily. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, are you insinuating that I have not been acting "like an adult"? That would appear to be a prejudiced and insulting statement regarding my behavior, and I do not appreciate that.

You have chosen not to answer the question I've asked you regarding meatpuppets and told me to work with people? You're not a referee? To whom do you think you are talking? Some elementary school student?

I suggest that you reconsider and answer the questions, because I will take you and any other patronizing, irresponsible (and/or incompetent) administrator I encounter to task here on Wikipedia. For the record, the questions I've asked you, Mr. Administrator, were not confined to the scope of my interaction witht Evildoer187, so do not attempt to circumvent answering my questions by implying that they were.

Please do not address me in a patronizing manner again. --Ubikwit (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

1) As an outsider, it looks to me like neither you nor Evildoer187 have been acting like adults.

2) I think it would be a mistake to accuse editors of being meatpuppets just because they share a POV with which you disagree.

3) Do whatever you think is appropriate, Ubikwit, in terms of action against me. WP:AN or WP:AN/I are probably the right places to file your complaint. Consider reading WP:BOOMERANG before you file that complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Malik, I don't quite know how to read you. You would seem to have good intentions in some regards, but than you seem to overcompensate or not to be aware of the implications of your own statements. Since you are an administrator, it is of greater concern to me than the personal attacks by Evildoer187.

Since I'm not here to waste anybody's time, and will not physically be able to tolerate any further wasting of my time, I'm just going to level with you that I will be filing some sort of administrative complaint in relation to this case, and since you are indirectly/directly involved, there is no question that you actions are going to be subject to as much scrutiny as mine.

So, perhaps we get a head start on the process here, if you'd like, by you responding to a couple more questions I have.

1)Why was my block longer than what you imposed on Evildoer187? It would seem that due to the miscues, including your misunderstanding of WP:EW--in the same manner that I had--followed by my revert at issue in the block would seem to represent a certain degree of mitigating circumstances with respect to my editing conduct. Yet, your reaction upon being challenged by deskana seems to me to perhaps represent an overcompensation for your mistake. It could, on the other hand, be based on some SOP relating to block duration.

2)It would seem that you have been issuing veiled threats at me to have me banned or the like with your statements of "involuntary separation" with respect to Evildoer187. Did it not occur to you that a threat was a form of personal attack?

Moreover, twice now, you have insinuated through an expression of your personal opinion as an Administrator that I was "not behaving like an adult"; mind you, the second incidence was after I informed you by way of complaint regarding the first instance.

You did send me the wikilink to WP:WIAPA, so I find it bit confusing. Is this another policy that you have forgotten? That policy lists the following.

• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
• Threats, including, but not limited to:

--Ubikwit (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

1) You were blocked for edit warring last month. Evildoer187 had no previous blocks. Consequently, I decided to block you longer for a second offense. "Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur."

2) If you see a personal attack in my description of your behavior as childish, or in my "threat" that continued childishness is likely to end in a ban, please file a complaint at WP:AN/I. Keep in mind that I have made the same prediction at User talk:Evildoer187. Maybe the two of you can cooperate and file a joint complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deskana, in light of your following offer, I'd like to pose to you the same questions I posed to Malik above. I'm primarily interested in the editing behavior related questions, as the policy issues are still less than 100% clear to me, and as per your advise to me to, "Try to keep out of trouble". The content related dimension to the following questions is fairly simple, I believe.

I would be happy to answer any questions Evildoer (or any other user) might have regarding conduct issues. I do not involve myself with the content issues in areas that I deal with conduct issues, as this keeps me so clueless about the topic matter that I'm actually incapable of being biased since I have no idea what anyone's even talking about. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• First, on the Settler colonialism page, if Evildoer187 restores the prefacing sentence by reverting my last edit, I gather that would amount to an editing war violation on his part, correct? If not, as per my discussion above containing the quote "prevent the situation from devolving into an unwitting editing war by restoring the version by nableezy, thereby securing consensus on the opening sentence" would my restoring the sentence written by nableezy represent consensus and therefore not be a violation of 1RR?

• Second, on Capital cities article, Dixy flyer has reverted my edit and left a comment on the Talk page that would appear to indicate that he doesn't understand the comments I made on the Talk page and didn't refer to the Jerusalem article in reference o the dispute.

In short, the edit I made reflects the fact that though modern Jerusalem is a religious center, it is not recognized as a capital city as per the competing claims by Israel and the Palestinians. Accordingly, though he claims to fail to understand my edit edit diff, which comprised "Ancient Jerusalem" and deleting the parenthetical content (more than one religion) bringing the text into conformance with NPOV, as only the ancient city is recognized as being a capital, and the ancient capital was under Judaism, exclusively. The talk page discussion is as follows.

I thought it might be simple simple to prefix Jerusalem with "Ancient" to avoid the present conflict, but that doesn't jibe with what was contained in the parenthetical content, so I deleted the parenthetical content. The mention under the Origins" section of this article is unproblematic, but implying that to the present is problematic.

See the related discussion at Jerusalem talk page.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I don;t see what the problem is or how your changes improve anything(my emphasis). Jerusalem was and still is a religious center. Dixy flyer (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

While this issue relates to the dispute at Jerusalem, Dixy flyer has not been involved in the discussions there. Furthermore, he submitted the "Query" to my Talk page as to whether or not I have " ever used a prior account on Wikipedia?". After he left that question he carried out the edit, his first on that article. On the other hand, most of his edits would seem to be related, like most of the other editors party to the case of the current block, to editing articles related to Israel and Jewish topics. In conjunction with the above-described course of events, I'm wondering if he is a meatpuppet? Perhaps you could comment on your experience with meatpuupets? Is there any harassment involved in that sequence of acts? Why would an editor I have not previously encountered on Wikipedia have engaged in such behavior?

At any rate, I intend to clarify the rationale for the edit on the Talk page and then revert to my edit, based on the understanding that such a course would be compliant with the WP:EW policy. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify policy issues and make any general comments on my intended course of action, such as compliance with the 1RR rule, implications for consensus, etc.]

• Third, I see that you redressed him for basically accusing nableezy of adhering to the protocols of zion or whatever, equivocating that with an accusation of antisemitism. So I wanted to bring it to your attention that Evildoer187 has come very close to calling me an antisemite on the Indigenous peoples List talk page a couple of times in reference to some historical background comments I made relating to settler colonialism, Freemasonry, etc. He basically dismissed it as antisemitic conspiracy theory, implying that I was an antisemite. I provided a number of reliable sources (as well as wikilinks such as Christian Restorationism) to document that it is a viable topic in mainstream history with the exception of aspects of the connection between the crusading Templars and the modern Freemasons. I don't know what his educational background is and I'm not interested, but slights of that nature are basically intolerable. His intolerant reaction to views that he takes as antagonistic to Zionism or whatever his religious convictions are would appear to border on bigotry or a reverse form thereof.

I have done some related editing on the Ten Lost Tribes and British Israelism pages were I encountered a similar reactions from a couple of editors that would seem to be Christians. In light of the somewhat heated discussion between No More Mr Nice Guy and Nishidani on the Jerusalem talk page regarding perceived ethnic slights, it would seem that this problem is somewhat endemic on certain pages. For the record, These articles relate to my academic fields of study, and I have been working on some of these topics for many years. Are there any Wikipedia policies related to interpersonal friction due to religious views/intolerance and the like?--Ubikwit (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

You really need to learn how to summarise. What you've written here is nearly 1,000 words long, and again muddles in a lot of content issues which I neither care about nor have any interest in. I will try to answer your questions, but you are not doing yourself any favours by making it difficult for me to do so. Additionally, learn to link diffs like I've done so here (this is an arbitrary diff that I picked from my contribution history). It helps keep your reports concise and prevents me from having to look around in page histories to get an idea of what you're talking about. Read Help:Diff for more information.

Suffice it to say that if you're just reverting repeatedly then you're edit warring, regardless of any discussion. This is an oversimplification of the issue, but it's the principle behind the issue and I'd have to write several thousand words to convey all the nuances. A single revert, such as this by Dixy flyer is unlikely to be seen as edit warring.

I am disturbed by how quickly you, and a lot of people involved in editing the topics you are interested in, accuse other editors of things. The Dixy flyer account has been registered for a few months, but because he left a comment on your talk page then edited a page you're interested in, he must be a meatpuppet? Again, it's suspicious, but suspicion is not proof. How about you focus on the actual content issues rather than concerning yourself with accusing other people of things? God knows there's enough content issues to keep you busy all day.

Explaining "why you're right" then reverting to your preferred version is edit warring. Because the other person can than explain "why they're right" and revert to their version, and the cycle continues. How futile. How about you stop reverting at all and instead discuss the issues until you reach a consensus? If you don't, there are other avenues you can follow.

Why don't you try editing something not relating to Isreal, Palestine, Jerusalem, or whatever else it is you've been editing about so far? That might help convince people that you're actually here to edit Wikipedia constructively rather than as a single purpose account to push your own agenda. Quite frankly, I suspect you will not heed this advice, as it's quite clear to me that you are here to push your own agenda, like so many of the users you're involved in disputes with. I've seen it a million times before. Most other websites would not afford you the courtesy of giving you a chance to prove the administrators wrong. Count yourself lucky you have one here.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. My edits are not restricted to the List of indigenous peoples and Jerusalem articles, nor the British Israelism and Ten Lost Tribes articles. I'm not sure whether you read all of the text I wrote above, but even in response to Dixy flyer I indicated that I have edited articles relating to Japanese history, which is my primary focus at present, but not here on Wikipedia. Maybe you should have a look at my contributions list. Most of the editors that I'm engaged in the content disputes, however, are "single purpose accounts" focused almost exclusively on Israel and Jewish issues and in a manner that would seem to be aimed at promoting the perceived interests associated therewith. Insofar as those efforts at promotion are not in conformance with WP:NPOV, they represent a situation where the content of the related articles on the website is being dictated by numerical superiority of editors.

Your characterization of my editing as "pushing an agenda" is problematic with respect to one basic distinction; that is, my POV is rational and based on sources, sources that relate to research I have been continuously engaged in on some level for more than twenty years, within a continuum of interrelated subject matter. The editors that I have been having content disputes with would appear to have a POV that is based more on an irrational adherence to one religious doctrine or another. One of them has repeatedly cited religious sources, resulting in an administrator to caution against the use of religious sources on the List article talk page, and two others have attempted to introduce genetics data in a manner that is not consistent with the "internationally recognized narrow definition" in use on the page, which places the topic firmly within the scope of the socio-political. I presume that you are aware of this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ubikwit, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Outside view by FiachraByrne

Content dispute dressed up as a behavioural issue as the applicant failed to get their preferred content into the article. If you want to change content in that article change the consensus through argument based on reliable and relevant sources about the definition of indigenous people on the article talk page. All else is civil POV pushing and an incredible time-sink.FiachraByrne (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Note the dismissive comment by Evildoer187 in response. It is highly likely that I will request a comment from the outside commentator, who would appear to be a mental health specialist, regarding the behavior of a couple of individuals involved in this case, and possibly bring an administrative action in an effort to put an end to the harassment and the like. I will respond to Malik later, because he seems to be aware of some of the implications of the comments he has directed toward me, even after I called one to his attention. It is also likely that I will introduce this case to a paid employee of Wikipedia, because I'm not certain that the behavior of the administrators is in accord with their stature. It may be the case that some of the administrators here have let the authority associated with being an administrator go their head. I'm trying to ascertain that at present. I don't know whether I can tolerate Malik insinuating that I'm not acting like an adult, twice. He has overstepped his the bounds of his authority and made what amounts to a defamatory remark, though my identity is cloaked by an assumed ID, there is associated emotional trauma, and I don't know whether that should be ignored.

Incidentally, I found my way into the morass of the List of indigenous peoples and Jerusalem articles by happenstance, basically. They are in an appalling state, and I have made not insignificant contributions toward improving them, as noted by comments from several experienced and highly educated editors. I have also stimulated discussions toward implementing further changes to bring the articles into conformance with Wikipedia policies, primarily NPOV. It is presumptuous of you to insinuate that I am pushing an agenda, especially when you apparently have not studied the relevant Talk pages. There is a difference between having a (rational and supported) POV and pushing an (irrational and unsupported) agenda. My manner of engaging the content is with respect to reliable sources, or on a meta, linguistics level in the case that other editors are more familiar than I with the sources. I am, to repeat, a professional translator, I am also a graduate of top tier university, and do not take kindly some of the condescension in some of your comments. You may be more advanced in years than I, but I am a responsible adult with a family.

I'll have more to say to you later, and specific queries relating to some of your comments. I am still not satisfied with our explanation relating to the curt and dismissive manner you adopted with respect to the sockpuppetry case, as two comments taken into consideration with the comments you made on that case raise questions, and I will discuss them with you later when I have the time to present them. Incidentally, I'm assuming that since you did a checkuser in that case you did confirm that the IPs were not connected, right?--Ubikwit (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Incorrect. Firstly, you provided insufficient evidence for a check as noted in the case. Any and all consequences as a result of my checkuser actions rest squarely on my shoulders and not on, for example, the person who filed the case, so I retain total discretion as to when I use the checkuser tool. I may decline requests as I see fit. Secondly, the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy does not permit me to publicly connect IPs to accounts in all but the most extreme of circumstances (such as a subpoena), so even if I did think the evidence you provided was sufficient for a check, I would not have been able to tell you anything anyway. My opinion is that my response to your case was fitting, and that opinion will not be changed. If you feel I acted inappropriately in a matter related to my checkuser usage then you may contact the Arbitration Committee. You may do so now via email if you wish, you need not wait to be unblocked. Regarding everything else, I have nothing more to say for now. I have given you my advice. It is your decision whether to take it or not. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to tell you this in a way that will convince you, but I feel compelled to try... From a glance at your talk page and the ArbCom page, I can 100% guarantee that you will not get what you want at ArbCom. 100%. Guarantee. It might just get removed or declined, but it would not be too surprising if it backfired and resulted in more problems for you. It is definitely in your best interest to remove the incipient case, slow down, and listen to advice. If you do that, I'll listen to your concerns and give you an independent opinion, which you would of course be free to listen to, or ignore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I'm being advised by deskana to send it by email. What is the bureaucratic conundrum that differentiates between email or webform?--Ubikwit (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

You're not submitting by "webform", you're requesting an official case. That means every Arbitrator is expected to look through your case, and accept or decline it. It wastes a lot of people's time. I assume you didn't read the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration? You should. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read as much as was required to file the case. What is the difference betweening requesting a case via email or the way I did?--Ubikwit (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

You would not request a case by email; Deskana is saying meant to say you have the option of notifying the Audit Subcommittee by email that you have a complaint about a Checkuser, and one or more members of the committee would determine if there was any basis for a more formal review. However, he's saying this mostly so you can't accuse him of hiding your options; in reality, you really have no basis for a complaint here. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would have run that checkuser. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for that. I don't know much about what this organization is like or procedural matters, but if the CU tool is not applied in cases like this, I guess that I'm just thinking on a different scale than organization level.--Ubikwit (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Checkuser is pretty much a last resort. Especially in this case, the stakes are so low (sorry, no offense), and the likelihood that they are the same person is so low (sorry again), that really, no Checkuser would have run a CU on that. If you send an email to AUSC, I can 100% guarantee you'll be wasting your time too, but at least you won't be accused of disrupting things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Filing a Request for Arbitration because a Checkuser has cautioned that they are not seeing any justification for running a checkuser on the specific case is a significant overreaction. It's entirely possible that annother checkuser may have ran it for you, but your reaction to this caution is just silly. Hasteur (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a tasty trout! I hope it got stunned unconscious by smacking into my hard head heheheh.

Well, I don't know about all this Wikimerengue, but I'm going to get to the bottom of this pie dish.

--Ubikwit (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

No checkuser would have run a check. We are not allowed to connect IPs to accounts. I have already told Ubikwit this, which makes the RfAr case all the more comical. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at Privacy Policy here [6], and I'm afraid I just don't understand your point, maybe it is spelled out somewhere else?--Ubikwit (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

I just read your RFArb case ... seriously? Are you intentionally trying to become the laughingstock of the project? Someone declined to use their tools due to privacy, and you're complaining? Really? Slow day for you? Never taken the time to read what checkuser is actually about, and what legal ramifications apply to checkusers? You don't understand that you cannot force a volunteer on this project to do something because you want it? You may still be able to salvage some dignity by withdrawing the case quickly ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your already on bad side. Get your attitude and go away Mr. Wilkins. You are obviously some authoritarian bureaucrat, seems to be in season. A member of the central committee?--Ubikwit (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

I'm serious - withdrawing your "case" would be wise for the polite reasons I have given above, that also included some background on why to do the withdrawal. You're welcome to ask me questions, and I'll be happy to answer them ... but really, withdraw the case before it gets worse (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I wasn't trying to waste anyone's time, honest mistake. What do I do, just delete the text?--Ubikwit (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Your comment there is sufficient. An Arbitration clerk will be along in a while to archive it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.--Ubikwit (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Well done, and cheers. Is there anything that I can do as either an admin or as an editor to assist? Point you in the right direction or clarify anything? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BWwilkins, Thanks. It's a little late where I live and I need to call it a day--the next one is already here... If you don't mind, maybe I'll take you up on that later, as I have another case I'm interested in filing and its a multi-party case that I'd like to resolve some issues with respect to some collective talk page behavioral issues... I've been working on a couple of these I/P articles, and it's grueling, so I want to make some of these people discuss in a manner that complies with relevant policies for promoting quality content. But I really gotta get some sleep now.

Once again, thanks for your help, and have a good day.--Ubikwit (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Per your request, I have removed your request for arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alexandr.

It seems that I've distracted you with a rather trivial matter. I apologize for that.

Good bye.--Ubikwit (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

See this. I will not tolerate further edit warring. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made only a single reversion on that article. There is not 0RR in effect on that page, correct?

I'm glad to see there is closer monitoring.

Note the note comment left by Shrike and the discussion on the Settler colonialism talk page. If he doesn't agree that the source he removed should be replaced on that article, I will open a dispute resolution case there, but I don't want to have to be opening dispute resolution cases on every article because of repeated violation of the same basic policies and a lack of good faith in discussions. I spent about 30 minutes trying to explain the difference between primary and secondary sources to Shrike on that talk page.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello, Ubikwit. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I have proposed an interaction ban between you and Evildoer187. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban proposal: Ubikwit and Evildoer187. You may comment there if you wish, but bear in mind that any comments you make me be taken in to consideration by other users when discussing the interaction ban. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With your current behavior at ANI, and your recent arbcom adventures I see you moving very quickly towards being at the receiving end of an indefinite block. If you envision a future for yourself at Wikipedia you need to let go of the I/P issue and find something other to do than waste people's time with screens after screen of meaningless text. If you think you are working to outbalance Evildoer you are wrong, he will eventually get himself blocked, just like you will if you don't let it go.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, you are hereby banned from interacting with Evildoer187 per the terms listed on WP:IBAN, with immediate effect. Note that any interaction with Evildoer187 may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]