User talk:The Kingfisher

Nomination of Joey Julius for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joey Julius is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Julius until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DonFB (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, The Kingfisher. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Antonioatrylia (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom

Kingfisher, I've withdrawn my delete nomination for Joey Julius. I now believe he is notable and the article should be kept. Regards, DonFB (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DonFB Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

You didn't revert this edit so why did you revert mine? It's overuse of the tag:

"While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all (hit-and-run). Consider whether adding this tag in an article is the best approach before using it, and use it judiciously." - from Template:Citation needed

also, you add one or a couple and then click edit when you could go from the top of the article and do it. I don't really care to get into a debate about this but I'm not sure if you knew about the overuse of the tag. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why I didn't revert another edit is irrelevant to me reverting your edit. Based on WP:IRE, and more specifically WP:CITENEED, I edited within policy by adding the temps to unsourced material.

"To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an uncited claim by inserting a simple ^{[citation needed]} tag, or by using a more comprehensive ^{[citation needed]} clause."

As "Jimbo Wales himself said he believed Wikipedia should focus more on the accuracy of our existing material instead of creating new material". I, too, won't debate, especially what "many editors perceive as overuse of this tag". My edits are within policy and, I believe, benefitting the project. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some advice: quoting Jimmy doesn't give you an automatic upper hand, as he himself will tell you. You are overusing the "citation needed" tag on Cat Stevens, and this is not the way we work collaboratively here. Discuss this on talk and get consensus when you are reverted more than once. You are on the edge of edit warring - and don't bother saying that more than 24 hours passed - what you are doing is not ok. I am going to revert you again on Cat Stevens and ask you to talk about it this time, on the talk page. Experienced editors are telling you that it is an over-application of the tag - some of the places you added it are just narrative. WP:IRE was a noble venture, and as an editor here for over 10 years I am well versed in the need for improving references. But this is not the way. (And by the way, IRE is an inactive project, not a policy or even a guideline. So invoking it doesn't give carte blanche.) Tvoz/talk 06:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You discussed a Wales quote and IRE, but nothing about WP:CITENEED. You also would have bolstered your argument regarding overuse had you left even a few citation needed templates, but you deleted them all. An editor with 10 years or 10 days has the right to add those tags. Per policy, can you please define the number of tags in an article that is acceptable and what constitutes overuse? The Kingfisher (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are many articles much more in need of your concern regarding citations - this one has over 150 cites and your energy might be better spent on articles that are in much worse shape. I don't object to the template, now that a more appropriate one is in place, but peppering the piece with tags is overkill. Tvoz/talk 06:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvoz: - he's overusing it on many pages. Racking up his edit numbers by doing it one at a time. Instead of doing all these tags, he should be spending time finding actual sources. Now that would be beneficial. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 20:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an important point - if editors spent more time looking for sources and less time tagging articles expecting someone else to do it, the encyclopedia would be in much better shape. The best approach, which I do as much as possible, is when you notice that a particular point needs sourcing - particularly when there's a quotation which always needs sourcing - first look for it yourself rather than passing it on to the next guy. I'll sometimes put in a "cite needed" tag when I'm in a rush (but I come back to it) or can't find the source and it's egregiously missing, or contradicted by other info, etc - but running around and tagging hither and yon is just annoying and disruptive, and gives the misleading impression that an article is deficient. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - you appear to be new here, and I will assume that your intention is to improve the project - but you should listen when more experienced editors weigh in, and discuss. We're all trying to create a good piece of work. Tvoz/talk 22:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or major contributing editors to articles can be responsible for the RSs in those articles. With all due respect, neither you nor any editor should be the arbiter as to how other editors should devote their time to the project. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra

Please note, and as per your edit summary, just because an edit, such as yours, does not breach policy, it doesn't mean you can add what you like. At best, your addition was trivial, uninteresting, and was badly formatted in terms of the citation. I must also mention your edit warring behaviour, too. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline where you will see that it is wrong for you to revert a revert and if you are reverted then it is up to you to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Cassianto ^Talk 15:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my summary: "no policies given to justify rv". At least your "trivial" rv I can deal with. BTW, can you please point me to the policy that states you can rv because of a "badly formatted" citation? The Kingfisher (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my summary: "At best, your addition was trivial, uninteresting, and was badly formatted in terms of the citation." The fact your formatting was up the wall is a side issue. In terms of your summary: ""no policies given to justify rv", I don't get your point? Why do you think a revert cannot be justified if it conforms to policy? Of course it can. How about the elephant in the room here; the fact it was uninteresting nonsense? Cassianto ^Talk 16:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your FIRST rv summary that was blank. If I'm not mistaken, Sinatra didn't exactly cure polio, so who he married is also "trivia" and "uninteresting nonsense" to many people. In this context, "Personal live" is the definition of trivial. The Kingfisher (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are a lot of things that could be considered to be "trivial". That's why, for instance, the infobox is collapsed. Who he married is an important part of his biography, as long as it is kept brief. Where he lived in location to the other Rat Pack members, however, is not. Cassianto ^Talk 18:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gisele Bündchen

I have begun discussion at Talk:Gisele Bündchen#Tom Brady. Rather than edit-war, per WP:BRD please discuss your issue on the article's talk page and try to reach consensus with fellow editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jew vs. Jewish

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jewish Franzboas (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Juliet Lapidos. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:Franzboas and I worked it out, so all is good, but thanks for the info. I'm just curious as to why your several reverts of Franzboas' edits on the same page is not considered edit warring? The Kingfisher (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017 another article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gisele Bündchen. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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.

Additional note: I pointed out this very policy to you here. Now that you have two editors having noted your edit-warring and pointing it out to you, an admin will take particular notice of this fact if you continue to revert at the Bundchen article despite there being an ongoing discussion at the article's talk page that has not reached consensus for your edit. As well, I have started a Request for comment at Talk:Gisele Bündchen#Request for comment, restoring the pre-edit status quo until this issue can be resolved. If you re-insert your edit without consensus, an admin will be notified.--Tenebrae (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with BLP, thank you. With regard to which article are you posting this? The Kingfisher (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about WP:BLP, the policy. It is about the discretionary sanctions that administrators may use to regulate the conduct of editors who edit BLPs. Also, it is not about any specific biography but about BLPs in general. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Shabazz: I need to point out that despite an ongoing RfC at Talk:Gisele Bündchen specifically about his edits there, The Kingfisher is continuing to make the same essential contentious edits despite no RfC consensus for them. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingfisher, I caution you again to read the information in the preceding notice carefully. Your next stop may be WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, the noticeboard on which editors request that administrators enforce the sanctions that apply (and that you continue to ignore at your own peril). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gisele_Bündchen. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. -- John Reaves 20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ami Horowitz. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have edited with misleading edit comments twice. Despite being warned on Talk:Ami Horowitz that your first edit was misleading you went ahead and restored basically the same content with another misleading edit comment. In the future, please don't write that you revert to someone's edit when you don't. Sjö (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Golden Arm

The article Golden Arm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Entirely unnotable and unencyclopedic

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, The Kingfisher. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sarsour, Judea Pearl

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Please note that the principles of civility and assuming good faith are fundamental to Wikipedia. Accusing other editors of malicious editing without concrete evidence, and making hostile gender-related comments, as in this edit of yours, are antithetical to Wikipedia's goal of creating a collegial environment for collaboration. If you truly care as much about the project as your strenuous protests would suggest, then I urge you to redact your 12:29, 29 December 2017 comment immediately. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I would, but one of your breathren admins closed the thread from further editing. More censurship. Even in the Arab-Israeli topic area, where tensions run high and editors soap for pages, I've yet to see an admin shut down a conversation. But thanks for your great feedback. Cheers. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin did so only to avoid having to place a block on your account for your disruptive comments that are in violation of several policies: WP:NPA, WP:FORUM, and WP:CIVIL are among them. I'd be very surprised if anyone argued that the continued presence of the offending remarks on the talk page was vital to Wikipedia's mission, so I'm sure you would be well within your rights to remove them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, was within my right, that was kid's play compared to the I/P area. Conversation is over. The Kingfisher (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Prager

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dennis Prager. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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.

If you want past consensus on the content to be reconsidered, the way to do so is comment on the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#The Kingfisher reported by User:Jytdog (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EdJohnston. Going out of town and offline until Sunday. Will respond then. The Kingfisher (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you get back you can either accept a 24 hour block or a 1 week topic ban from the article (you can still use the talk page). Please let me know your choice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what, exactly? The Kingfisher (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to best prevent future edit warring. If you use the talk page and get consensus for the edit you want to make then that's fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community."

You know, I know, and everybody knows that your punishment will not help make the content on Wikipedia better, but will only embolden, as you have, those who have hijacked the Prager article and are pushing their own POV. Your disseminating punishment prior to hearing my response is further evidence. The Kingfisher (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your response should have been added to the article's talk page where the other editors' posted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingfisher reported by User:Jytdog (Result: TBD)

Previous version reverted to: -- - there are three bits here: diff December 25, adding quote by Prager defending against antisemitism; diff removing content critical of him about his views on Islam; diff 26 December adding content about support for Trump

Diffs of the user's reverts:

diff 25 Dec again removing Islam content
diff 3rd Jan restoring Trump content
diff 4th Jan restoring quote with defense about antisemitism
diff 4th Jan restoring quote with defense about antisemitism
diff 4th Jan again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Jan 4th

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: editor made one comment at Talk:Dennis Prager back in May (contribs there) There has been extensive discussion of these sections (see archives as well)

Comments:
Article has been extensively disrupted by socks and advocacy and has been protected several times. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog is correct. The Prager article seems to be "protected" by automatic reverts by POV-pushers. The only content that is easily placed into the Prager article is quotes and information that oppose Prager's viewpoints, with very little balance, as demanded in Wikipedia WP:UNDUE. Nowhere is that clearer than how Prager was portrayed as a Trump supporter. The section simply started with one sentence: "Prager endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election." It was then followed by an entire paragraph devoted to Conor Friedersdorf's attack piece from The Atlantic:

"Trump is the quintessential embodiment of so much that Prager claims to abhor (so much that he alighted on Trump as an example of who shouldn’t be president in the past); and Trump is the antithesis of much Prager claims to value."[11] Friedersdorf noted that Prager had in 2011 said that Trump's profanity "render[ed] him unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president"; that he could not "trust the integrity or conscience of a man or woman who publicly humiliates his or her spouse" through adultery; that those who lie to besmirch the names of others cannot be trusted; and that "any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture".[11]

Does anyone suggest that section was WP:BALANCE?

My edit simply gave important context to Prager's endorsement of Trump, that he was, in fact, Prager's 17th choice out of 17 Republican candidates. Yet Jytdog reverted me here, writing that a university newspaper is not a reliable source, and Snooganssnoogans reverted me here for the same reason. I reverted both and the edit has stuck. Maybe they realized they'd have a weak argument taking me to AN over that.

There are several inaccuracies with Jytdog's assertions:

Jytdog wrote that I restored a quote with "defense about antisemitism". In fact, I edited a quote from a strong RS by Prager, responding to Ed Koch's quote about Prager:

Responding to Koch, Prager wrote, "Two years ago the American Jewish Press Association awarded me its Prize for Excellence in Commentary. Did they miss something that Ed Koch caught? Or does he smear people he differs with as part of his style of argumentation?

Jytdog, where exactly in that quote is there a "defense about antisemitism"?

Jytdog's dif and comment that I removed "content critical of him [Prager] about his views on Islam" is disingenuous at best. Per WP:BLP and other problems, I removed the word "falsely" from the following sentence: "Prager falsely asserted that an oath on any book other than the Bible would be unprecedented." Falselely is a strong word unsupported by any RS. Moreover, this section is supposed to be a summary of the main article, where even there it does not use the word "falsely". Rather it states: Critics challenged Prager's claim that swearing in with a Bible is a "tradition that has been unbroken since George Washington." There simply is no RS that supports that Prager "falsely" stated this, which makes Snooganssnoogans' edit here WP:OR. With the absence of a reliable source, Snooganssnoogans' own edit summary, "the source clearly notes that others have taken an oath of office on non-bible books", proves WP:SYNTH. Yet I was reverted. In fact, Jytdog backed my assertion and correctly removed the word "falsely" in this edit. Why did Jytdog then not revert Ronz in this edit?

Jytdog was disingenuous when s/he wrote that I was "again removing Islam content", implying an anti-Islam POV on my part. The section was already overly bloated, Snooganssnoogans's edit reverted my edit about "falsely", and s/he had grammatical mistakes.

Jytdog was again disingenuous when s/he bloated his/her case against me by showing a dif where I was "restoring Trump content", when, Jytdog seemed to ultimately accept that edit.

A better question is why User:NeilN thinks that it is good Wikipedia policy to dispense a punishment before giving an editor time to respond? Unfortunately, there appears to be an anti-Prager WP:TAGTEAM environment in the Prager article, and it now seems emboldened by administrators. The Kingfisher (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, please see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN They came back and are right back at it. Very happy to take this to AE if needed but I think we can handle this here with a very long block. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:NeilN, Jytdog is at it again, disingenuous as always, insidiously and purposely not giving the facts when they learned them. I'm sure that Jytodog read my edit here, but did nothing to strikeout or clarify their proposal to you to give me a "very long block." Jytdog won't scare me from the Prager article, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. Editors are human and, as I stated, I simply did not see the earlier edit/revert and I thought I was making the first revert. As I also wrote, had I been notified--an accepted Wiki practice--I would have immediately self-reverted. But, obviously, as Jytodog has repeatedly demonstrated, they use Gotcha editing in order to ban/block editors to the right of their opinions. Enough of Jytdog's childish antics. The Kingfisher (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog can recommend what he wants but I'm the one who has to justify my actions. I was still editing when I was pinged, held off to see what you were going to do, and moved on when I saw you self-reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The self revert was appropriate, yes, and there was no need for action following that. I have no intention to scare anyone away from anything. Be here to build an encyclopedia in this community, follow community policies, guidelines, and norms and you will have no problems; continually abuse your editing privileges to promote some POV and edit war to try to force it in, and the community will take action against you. That is how WP works. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog: With all due respect, your history of insidiously failing to give context and purposely leaving out facts is now public, so your condecending lesson on POV-pushing and how to work on Wikipedia falls short. It is easy for you to cry POV-editing when one comes from left of center because most Wiki editors and (more importantly) admins are left of center. Regardless, there are policies about balance, and particularly on the Dennis Prager article, you and others have shown a systemtic pattern of WP:UNDUE. Look no further than the section "Islam". The title alone is POV-pushing since even the main article is Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. It was not Prager's views about Islam, but about the oath ceremony itself. Prager even gave the same argument if one wanted to take the oath on Dianetics. What do you not understand? Even in the main article it does NOT state that Prager "made the incorrect assertion", yet that there it is in Prager's article, in what is supposed to be a small summary of the main article. Further, you have allowed inclusion about Koch's comments and deleted all of Prager's responses to Koch. How exactly do you suggest that isn't POV-pushing, edit-waring, or WP:UNDUE? Is that, in your eyes, WP:BALANCE? The Kingfisher (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to discussion of policies, NPOV does not mean "balance" - it means that we reflect what independent sources say about things. So no, going and asking "What did X have to say in response to Y?" is not what NPOV means. It does mean that we find as many high quality sources about X and see what they say about it, and reflect the weight given in them.

With regard to the specific issues about the Prager article, please discuss content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me where to discuss content on my talk page! The Kingfisher (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaase read WP:TPG. Article content should be discussed at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of edit warring behavior

diff adding Prager quote 11:14, 2 February 2018, no prior discussion on Talk page.
diff 17:38, 2 February 2018, restored, with no prior discussion on talk page.

You still have used the article talk page only one time per your contribs there and that was back in May. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

diff again. 18:01, 2 February 2018.

User:NeilN I think we are pretty much done here, hm? Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we? One revert (in a 3RR topic area) followig new content is edit-warring? Don't use my page to make your case. If you want, report me on the 1R. The Kingfisher (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you've had fun times with Jytd0g too! You were much more patient and tenacious than I was. Now that he's gone, I miss his contributions sometimes. I DO NOT miss having these sorts of back and forths with him, though, ungh!--FeralOink (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FeralOink You scared the piss out of me! I saw "Resumption of edit warring" and I'm thinking, "what did I do now?" I did not know that Jytd0g was gone. I won't shed tears. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use article talk pages to discuss your changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1R on new content. Good for you. The Kingfisher (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same one paragraph you've been focused on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding? That was completely new content with no revert to make it! And, in a 3RR topic area. I could see had I reverted even a second time, but ONE revert??? That's BS and you know it. Zero policy backs this only Jytog's constant whinning. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been constantly told to use the article talk page. What is it going to take for you to do so to build consensus after one of your changes is reverted? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at their one diff to the article talk page, and it was this -- a misplaced ANI notice about a dispute at a different article (the archived thread at ANI is here). So they have actually never used the TP to discuss the Prager article. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, The Kingfisher. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts

Have you used any prior accounts on Wikipedia? nableezy - 20:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be against Wikipedia policy? The Kingfisher (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It possibly would be. Have you used any prior accounts? nableezy - 03:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is calling another editor the name of a banned editor, like here, against Wikipedia policy? The Kingfisher (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Have you used any prior accounts? nableezy - 06:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the honesty here. Really. Will talk more, with this or the next sock. nableezy - 21:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you here per WP:ASPERSIONS. Noted that you did it again. The Kingfisher (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is reasonable cause. How exactly did you know "NoCal" is a reference to a banned editor? Curious one, as no editor named NoCal has ever been registered on Wikipedia. It is a common way of referring to the name of a banned editor, one banned years and years before you ever made this account. Curious indeed. nableezy - 23:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reasonable cause. Only your straw man exercise to redirect from the fact that you have no argument in the maqluba article.

Regarding how I knew about NoCal? You ever hear of google? Here's the search results showing both you and NoCal! Enjoy:https://www.google.com/search?q=nableezy+nocal&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS806US806&oq=nableezy+nocal&aqs=chrome..69i57.5120j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8. And, in case you missed it, this.

If you have proof that I'm a sock, bring it on. If not, I suggest that you just go back to editing. I won't respond anymore on this thread. --The Kingfisher (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sure thing buddy. nableezy - 01:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are innocent of socking, then stand your ground against this argumentative editor. He is often a curmudgeon in arguing his POV on article TP's. Goes with the territory. 50.111.10.215 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked them up and they have quite a long combative history. Thanks The Kingfisher (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

DYK

Do you want to WP:DYK you newly created article? Also you may call the attack as terrorist but we don't call the people in such way see WP:TERRORIST --12:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to nominate it, thanks!

Re "terrorist", none of the RSs support militant. I suggested we move it to Talk. The Kingfisher (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not send me any more e-mail. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a mistake you only option is to appeal to ARBCOM by email arbcom-en

wikimedia.org--Shrike (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to divulge private information to ARBCOM - but it might be worth pursuing. My read of the behavioral evidence at the SPI was that ot was mainly based on interest in Israel related topics (+ caps on "Talk"). The CU was "little less than likely" - which sounds iffy (based on geographic location? No idea). If you were blocked for living close to someone else and being interested in Israel - that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work (particularly since editors interested in Israel often live in particular geographic cluster).Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I’m appealing my NoCal100 sockpuppet block based on one reason: I’m not a NoCal100 sockpuppet. I don’t know NoCal, I’ve never met NoCal, nor do I know who s/he is.

(I’ve read the overview for appealing and since I did nothing wrong, I won’t apologize for any transgressions and because I was never contacted nor given time to challenge the investigation before I was unfairly blocked, I won’t keep my appeal short.)

So, how do I disprove this false accusation against me of being a NoCal sockpuppet? The only way, it seems, is by a) discrediting the “evidence” used against me; b) discrediting the editor (@Nableezy:) who filed the case against me; c) discrediting the administrator (@Bbb23:) who ultimately blocked me; and d) shining light on the modern-day witch-hunt and the very broken system that not only allows, but assists editors to remove pro-Israel editors from Wikipedia by falsely claiming that they are NoCal100 sockpuppets.

The evidence

The initial CU finding was “Technically, The Kingfisher is a little less than Likely [a NoCal sock].” (Translation: “The Kingfisher edits from California, but other than that, I can’t find anything to show that he is a NoCal sock.”) This adds importance to my challenges of the “behavioral similarities presented by Nableezy and @HJ Mitchell:”.

Capitalizing “Talk”

Sherlock Holmes [Nableezy] figured that since I sometimes capitalized the word “Talk” (as in Talk page) and because he was able to find another six accused NoCal socks (out of 50+) who also capitalized Talk, then I must be a NoCal sock. (With that powerful similarity I’m surprised that Nableezy didn’t just drop the mic!

For curiosity, I did a search and I found some interesting editors who also capitalize Talk. Here are just a few:

Let’s begin with Bbb23, THE ADMINISTRATOR WHO BLOCKED ME, “based on the similarities presented”. He even capitalized Talk when another editor appealed to him on his Talk page on my behalf. Bbb23 responded: “I don't want to hear any more on this subject on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)”

More Bbb23 “Talk” search tool

The following are two editors who backed Nableezy on the Arbitration/Request that I filed against him: @Zero0000: and @Nishidani: (more about that later)

Zero0000 “Talk” search tool

Nishidani “Talk” search tool

The fact is that I learned to capitalize Talk by seeing other editors and admins do it. Shame on me!

Common articles with past socks

Nableezy showed 12 common articles that I edited with other accused NoCal socks. (According to my count, the number is actually 18.) And from over 50 accused and blocked socks totaling more than 85,000 edits and thousands upon thousands of articles, Nableezy found that I edited 12 common articles with 10 editors.

Just to put it in perspective—and again using the two aforementioned editors—Nableezy has edited with Zero0000 and Nishidani on 1,543 common articles. Editor Interaction Analyser

Here’s the math: The Kingfisher + 50+ accused socks (and more that 85,000 edits) = 12 common articles Nableezy + 2 editors = 1,543 common articles

Maybe someone should look into their WP:MEATPUPPETRY?

Same editing time periods

Nableezy presented evidence that I edit(ed) in the same time periods as five other accused socks: NoCal100, @Canadian Monkey:, @Epson Salts:, @Bad Dryer:, and @Firken Flying Fox:. This in and of itself raises an interesting question: If all 50+ editors are actually NoCal socks, wouldn’t most editing be in the same time periods and why could Nableezy find no more than five editors with same editing time periods?

However, take a closer look at the editing time frames that Nableezy submitted as evidence (and Bbb23 accepted):

Here is mine: The Kingfisher doesn't edit on Shabbat

NoCal100 edits on Shabbat

Canadian Monkey edits on Shabbat

Epson Salts edits on Shabbat

Bad Dryer doesn't edit on weekends

Flying Fox edits on Shabbat

It is obvious that there is only one similarity between The Kingfisher (my) editing times and those of NoCal, Canadian Monkey, Epson Salts, and Bad Dryer: All most likely live in the Pacific time zone. (I’m not sure what similarity Nableezy saw in Firkin Flying Fox and why Bbb23 didn’t question it.)

Observant Jew

There is one glaring difference between my editing and presumably ALL other accused socks, and specifically the ones that Nableezy used as evidence: I’m an observant Jew. I never edit on Shabbat nor any Jewish holidays. Another editor supplied Bbb23 with that information, but rather than review it, Bbb23 instead wrote to get off his “Talk page”. Nableezy, one who appears to never assume good faith, told him to butt out. Why let truth get in the way of anything?

(Note: Bad Dryer never edited on a weekend, so that does not lead to his being an observant Jew. Maybe check out if he edited on Jewish holidays? I never did/do.)

Credibility of the SPI serial filer: Nableezy

In looking at the long list of NoCal100 SPIs, it seems that Nableezy has the majority of filings, or has participated in most of the discussions. It also seems that Nableezy has used this tactic, not just to get real NoCal100 sockpuppets, but to remove actual editors who are pro-Israel. (From what I’ve seen, he’s never filed an SPI against any editor who was anti-Israel.)

In this particular case, I had filed a complaint against Nableezy at Arbitration/Requests and, at one point, an administrator @GoldenRing: looked inclined to sanction Nableezy with a topic ban. Nableezy then filed a false claim against me that I’m a NoCal100 sockpuppet and Bbb23 blocked me. It obviously seemed retaliatory and not just a coincidence, but apparently not enough for Bbb23 or any other administrator to look into it.

Blocking administrator: Bbb23

Had Bbb23 actually looked at any of the evidence given, he would have seen that I’m not a NoCal1100 sock. Unfortunately, he didn’t. He simply accepted the word of a serial anti-Israel SPI filer. That was Bbb23’s first offense. His worst though was not being open to reviewing that I am an orthodox Jew who doesn’t edit on Saturdays while virtually all of the other 50+ accused socks do, save the few who don't edit on weekend.

I’ve since learned that Bbb23 had his CU tools striped and he is now pretty much retired. (It couldn’t have happened soon enough or to a nicer guy!) I have no idea what he did, but his egregious partnering with Nableezy in blocking pro-Israel editors has been very destructive against the Jewish and pro-Israel editing community.

The Broken System

The question that needs to be answered: how could Wikipedia administrators and ARBCOM allow Nableezy and a few administrators to block 50+ editors for more than a decade under the guise of one editor who only had 2,629 edits from January 2008—June 2009?

Any serious investigation into this unbridled witch-hunt would have instantly demonstrated that Nableezy and others were doing this simply to remove editors with opposing views. And they were allowed to do it.

Even the techniques used as “evidence” are 100% flawed, and any cursory, intelligent review would have shown that, but for more than a decade you allowed (and are allowing) this to continue.

For example, every editor that is blocked as a sock—rightly or wrongly—every page that they ever touched is added to the pool of previous editors. That pool is now thousands and thousands of pages, so simply finding a few common pages between editors is incredibly easy. Maybe early on if you had only one blocked editor and you found a sock that edits 90% of the same pages, then such an approach might be appropriate. However, to allow this pool of edits to accumulate into thousands of pages as it has, and for it to be weaponized as a kind of pseudo-evidence against alleged socks who are pro-Israel editors is an offensive joke.

I’m not a NoCal sock, yet you’ve now added every page that I’ve ever touched as proof to falsely accuse pro-Israel editors of being socks.

The next egregious problem is that you don’t allow accused socks any time to challenge the “evidence” allegations. I could have disproved Nableezy’s filing instantly by showing that I’m an observant Jew, but I was blocked without an opportunity to defend myself. This obviously goes against “good faith,” supposedly a core Wikipedia principal.

Blending in with that problem is that you allow editors such as Nableezy the right to delete articles created by socks. So, after falsely accusing me of being a NoCal sock and giving no substantial evidence to back their claim, you then allowed them to knife me a second time by deleting articles that I created. Like the articles about “Ari Fuld”, or “Relik Shafir”, or about the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that I know, Mitchell Landsberg. But, in the case of Landsberg, you allowed further insult by allowing the person who deleted my article to immediately re-create it under their own username. Liken this to a person who falsely accusing another person of murder, the person is sent to prison, and the one who falsely accused him then gets his house in a civil trial. (They tried to delete the Juliet Lapidos article, but apparently there were too many edits.)

Another block

And now you’ve allowed this broken methodology to extend to other editors and administrators who saw how well Nableezy used it.

For example, after The Kingfisher was unjustly and unfairly blocked as a NoCal sock, I created a new account: @UberVegan:. (Yes, I get that it is against Wikipedia policy, but don’t you find it a bit absurd to condemn me after falsely accusing me of being a NoCal sock and blocking me?)

Then what happened? A problematic editor with a shaky history of their own, @Snooganssnoogans:, got me as a sock of The Kingfisher. But all the evidence they used was exactly evidence of editing like The Kingfisher, not of NoCal100! (They didn't even use the best evidence, that UberVegan never edited on Shabbat.) If the evidence was so specific to The Kingfisher AND UberVegan, couldn’t that in fact be used as exculpatory evidence that I’m NOT NoCal?

To make things worse, Snooganssnoogans, saw that it worked and presented evidence against the @JBlackCoffee52:, who Bbb23 quickly “Confirmed” and blocked as a sock of The Kingfisher/UberVegan. There’s only one problem: I’m not JBlackCoffee52!!! And what did Snooganssnoogans do to prove it? They pulled common articles going back to Canadian Monkey! Not to mention that we were “gaslighting” because we didn’t agree with them.

That worked so well that Snooganssnoogans used this same tactic and went after another editor: @DoubleCross:. But there was one major problem that Snooganssnoogans didn’t foresee. They no longer had Bbb23—who rubberstamped SPIs and removed predominantly Jewish and pro-Israel editors from Wikipedia. Instead, Snooganssnoogans got @TonyBallioni: who must have seen that DoubleCross wasn’t my or NoCal’s sock.

Then Snooganssnoogans tried it again, filing an SPI on @Israelgale:. (Israelgale’s mistake was editing on Gatestone Institute’s page with a differing opinion than Snooganssnoogans.) But, again, they got TonyBallioni who saw that it wasn’t a NoCal… I mean The Kingfisher/UberVegan sock.

So why not try again and Snooganssnoogans tried the same tactic on @The bandoleer:. (Their crime? Opposing Snooganssnoogans on Gatestone Institute.) And again, TonyBallioni doesn’t block The bandoleer as my sock, but they do Topic Ban them. Perfect! A new tactic is created: if you can’t get someone officially blocked as a sock, then Topic Ban them!

Yes, the entire SPI system is broken with an obviously decided slant against predominantly Jewish and pro-Israel editors.

Another bit of evidence overlooked in all of this: NoCal100 primarily edited in the IP topic area, where The Kingfisher and UberVegan only had a handful of edits there.

Lastly, @Doug Weller:, if my tone sounds less than contrite, just imagine how you would feel if one day you were falsely accused of being a sock, blocked, then had many of your articles deleted?

Requests

Based on the evidence that I presented, I request the following:

Unblock both @The Kingfisher: and @UberVegan:. (The UberVegan will not edit in the IP topic area or any overlapping pages as The Kingfisher, especially because I want to finish writing the article “Henry Ford and Antisemitism”).
Recreate all of the articles that were deleted after falsely blocking these users as NoCal socks.
Remove all strikeouts that were placed after falsely blocking these users as NoCal socks.
Open an investigation as to how Nableezy and now Snooganssnoogans have and are abusing the SPI system.
Block Nableezy and Snooganssnoogans from ever filing any further SPI reports.

Thank you The Kingfisher (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account is pretty clearly a NoCal100 sock, and appears to have been reactivated to request an unblock shortly after NoCal100's most recent sock was blocked. (Cross-reference to User:UberVegan, which he's also reactivated simultaneously with a similar request). Leaving aside the unconvincing denial of sockpuppetry, the request itself is essentially a combative attack on others and provides no confidence that the editor would work productively here. Combining the dishonesty about sockpuppetry and the unconvincing unblock request, I will decline here, in keeping with the views of other admins expressed below. MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 16 October 2020 (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.

Comment by Jewish editor Debresser

The Kingfisher has made a very convincing case that he is not a sock of NoCal100. If he is an observant Jew who doesn't edit on Shabbat and NoCal100 edited on Shabbat, then they are not one and the same. I am also very distraught by the possibility raised in this request that a clique of editors have over the years caused a lot of Jewish editors being blocked unjustly, and think that this serves looking into. In addition, if Bbb23, whom I know for many years as being active in the field of sockpuppetry investigations, indeed refused to look into the clear evidence presented to him, then he must retire or be made to retire from this field, with all due respect. The Kingfisher has also made a convincing argument regarding the capitalization of the word "Talk", turning the reporting and blocking editors into a laughingstock. The Jewish community, on and outside Wikipedia will be watching this post with great interest. I advise you to not fuck it up (as you usually do)! Debresser (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OhNoitsJamie: I would be belligerent too if I were unjustly blocked or restricted (which has happened in the past). Debresser (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, in Wikipedia, you can't defend yourself. It's mind-boggling that evidence that shows one is an Orthodox Jew doesn't overwrite circumstantial evidence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: What you are actually saying is that this editor must be punished for trying to defend himself at length. I hope you do understand the Kafkaesque absurd of that reasoning. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, a paragon of honesty. Honestly, I'm not totally sure this is NoCal, had the same vibe which I cannot describe without violating WP:NPA, and despite the unblock request largely being a series of personal attacks I'll leave unsaid what that vibe is. But he very much did have a chance to defend himself. He could have made an unblock request then. He didn't, what he did was create a sock and then lie about the relationship between accounts. And yall here talking about laughingstocks lol, nableezy - 17:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: My honesty to my Gd and swearing an oath, etc. is beyond reproach. I did not see it as dishonest by circumventing a system that has blocked users for more than a decade based on your continued false accusations. I saw it more as survival. Like, lying to a group that is chasing a homosexual with the intent of hurting him that he went in a different direction. But getting an honesty lesson from you is rich. You just admited that you "honestly" are not sure if I am a NoCal sock, but you didn't say that when you presented false evidence that I was. (In any case, I decided to admit the truth mostly because I'd like to finish the "Henry Ford and antisemitism" article that I started.) And, no, I did NOT have a chance to defend myself. What I had a chance to do was "appeal" my case after I was blocked. Two very different scenarios, and why I explained that the system needs fixing, to allow a user time to defend themself before they are unfairly and unreasonably blocked. Why the rush? The second that Bbb23 was not willing to look at the evidence presented to him that I do not edit on Shabbat and he wrote to get off his Talk page, I was not interested in appealing. But this system, like much of Wikipedia, is broken. Here you all are, throwing everything at me except the fact that I was falsely and wrongly blocked as a NoCal sock. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry what? I presented what false evidence? I thought you were NoCal so I filed a report. Im no longer as certain of that. I however did not lie to anybody. Whereas you apparently admittedly have. You did not see it as dishonest to flat out lie to somebody about the relationship between accounts? In what moral universe is lying not dishonest again? The purposeful telling of an untruth. That is not dishonest. And you got the guts to ask your sock account to also be unblocked lol. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained. It's pretty clear. I do find it humorous and an oxymoron, though, you using the word "moral". As far as false evidence and being dishonest, you've done it for more than a decade. I know it for a fact as I'm not a NoCal sock. NoCal socks couldn't possibly contribute more than 85,000 edits, but you knew that. This is a witch-hunt that Wikipedia has allowed you to continue. The fact that you're being allowed, doesn't legitimize your dishonesty. But I'm sure that your next edit will be showing that I called you dishonest which is further grounds not to remove my block. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quite literally have no idea what NoCal socks couldn't possibly contribute more than 85,000 edits even means. But good luck with the appeal. Or with the next sock if thats your idea of honesty. nableezy - 23:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments (admin)

I'm going to hold off on declining this request, as I'd prefer additional administrative input, but I would note the timing. NoCal100's most recent sock was just blocked a week ago. And now this account—which was blocked 1.5 years ago as a NoCal100 sock and has been quiet ever since—suddenly activates to request an unblock. Not very subtle at all. Leaving aside the combination of behavioral and checkuser evidence, which make it clear that this account was correctly identified as a NoCal100 sock, the unblock request is basically a lengthy personal attack against a number of other editors, and the Kingfisher account was a belligerent, partisan, tendentious account in its own right. So I would strongly oppose an unblock, although as I said I will wait for additional admin input before declining. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your logic. If the user were editing productively, and if they weren't posting long screeds, it might be tempting to unblock them. But that's not the case. Additionally, another sock has appeared to defend them FoxyLOL (talk · contribs). @Bbb23: could you check that one also? Jehochman ^Talk 12:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a net benefit to the project by unblocking this user, given the belligerent screeds posted here and at UberVegan. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email from ARBCOM to The Kingfisher

Dec 28, 2020, 11:46 AM

Hi The Kingfisher,

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to grant your appeal.

We do not consider you to be a reincarnation/sockpuppet of NoCal100. Accordingly, I have unblocked both The Kingfisher and UberVegan. Please pick one of these accounts to edit with; while you are under no restrictions, such as a one-account restriction, it is best practice to use one account (note the legitimate/illegitimate uses of alternate accounts at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry).

For the Arbitration Committee,

Maxim

The Kingfisher (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Welcome back! Shrike (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Single Handed (book)

The article Single Handed (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

zero references about the book, just the subject

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Murder of Ari Fuld for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Ari Fuld is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Ari Fuld until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

nableezy - 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hen Mazzig

The article Hen Mazzig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There's no real indication as to why this activist is notable. He started a "viral movement" (one source), "criticized a student BDS resolution" (one source), "spoke" and was a "panelist". He also published a book with a new imprint of an independent publishing house. This reeks of a lack of notability to me.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kakurokuna (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]