User talk:Wickey-nl

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
Wikipedia:Footnotes
Wikipedia:Template messages/Section
Template:Which?
Template:Requested move
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Noticeboards
POICA
Wikipedia:Sleeper accounts
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Plot_Spoiler
Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Brewcrewer/list_of_Palestinian_ax_attacks
/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4

---

WARNING: I do not discuss articles here. Notifications are welcom. Wickey-nl, 26 February 2014

Complaint about edit warring at Civilian casualty ratio

Please see WP:AN3#User:Yarron reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: ). This report claims a 1RR violation by User:Yarron. While reading the history I notice that you also have reverted twice in 24 hours. It is possible that whoever closes the report might sanction you as well. You might add your own comment at the 3RR noticeboard. It has not escaped my notice that more than one person might be adding non-neutral prose, but even prose that needs removing can get a person in trouble with WP:1RR. There is an ARBPIA banner on the article's talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You made no response to the problem with your own edits at Civilian casualty ratio. Another editor has now filed about your role on that article at WP:AN3#User:Wickey-nl reported by User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!. You seem to have violated 1RR on 16 June. If you will promise not to edit Civilian casualty ratio or its talk page for two weeks you might escape sanction. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wickey-nl, you may as well do that. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! is clearly a sock and they have started editing the Civilian casualty ratio article, so there is really no point wasting your time on that article anymore. I have taken it off my watchlist. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

ARBPIA 1RR at Civilian casualty ratio

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for WP:1RR violation at Civilian casualty ratio. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per this complaint at AN3 of a 1RR violation (permanent link). EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

False allegation. Apparently, the hasbara campain on WP has become more active again. The fact that I, who never violated the rule before and never been blocked before, was blocked overnight, even depriving him from the possibility to defend himself on the noticeboard, shows the alarming condition of Wikipedia.--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; no longer blocked. Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

@EdJohnston: Actually, I did only reply at the noticeboard regarding the complaint against User Talk:Yarron. I was only falsely allegated at 7:40 pm, when I had already left Wikipedia. I would expect the administrators to investigate a case thoroughly, before taking such a drastic measure as blocking someone. I had stopped editing before the complaint against me appeared. Was it urgent to block me without being able to defend myself? Or is your contribution part of the hasbara game? Blame on you.

As I am blocked to edit the noticeboard, I can only react here. Please tell me, what was the double revert? --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The time for you to discuss the details of your reverts was when I first contacted you at 18:27 on 16 June. It is typical for admins to take no action on apparent 1RR violations if the person offers to be more careful in the future, unless they've been reported for the same thing in the past. Your argumentative and unhelpful response was taken to be saying 'I'm not edit warring but the other people are.' Your block can still be lifted if you will agree not to edit Civilian casualty ratio or its talk page for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In your cryptic message above, you did not provide any specific double revert, nor was I mentioned in the case, let alone threatened with sanctions. Your hypocritical formulation "It is possible that whoever closes the report might sanction you as well" did not reveal that it was youself who wanted to block me. And only today, after blocking, you informed me about a complaint against me. Disgusting. Anyway, I am not interested in further editing of this minor article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Strangely enough, there was no response on my unblock request other than from the blocking administrator himself, who violated thus the applicable rules. Im am convinced that the block was unjustified. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious procedure

EdJohnston, I do not bother a 48 hours block, but this is rather a principle question. The block was performed via the Edit warring noticeboard. Yet, a child can see in the history below that I was just editing the article and not edit warring at all.

It looks like you played a game. When you warned me above, you apparently already knew that an allegation against me would follow on the noticeboard. You warned me in advance, without presenting any evidence. The next day User talk:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (JMCA), apparently a zombie sockpuppet who had not been editing for more than two years, waked up and filed a complaint on the noticeboard. Half an hour later, after I had left WP, you noticed me about that. Half an hour later, JungerMan Chips Ahoy! began editing Civilian casualty ratio, and another 5 hours later, you blocked me.

The history (UTC + 2 hours):

20:27, 16 June 2014: EdJohnston's warning (vague, false allegation, cryptic message)
19:34, 17 June 2014: JMCA files a complaint on noticeboard (false allegation)
19:37, 17 June 2014: EdJohnston defends Brewcrewer on the noticeboard
19:40, 17 June 2014: JMCA expands complaint
20:07, 17 June 2014: EdJohnston's notification about JMCA's complaint (while I was asleep)
20:41, 17 June 2014: JMCA starts editing Civilian casualty ratio
03:30, 18 June 2014: EdJohnston blocks my account
10:51, 18 June 2014: My request for un-blocking
14:44, 18 June 2014: EdJohnston replies on request for un-blocking, violating the rules and de facto obstructing my unblock request.

I filed a complaint against EdJohnston: here. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Related edits

wickey-nl, these are the edits

• 2014-06-16T17:12:40‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (33,628 bytes) (+1,190)‎ . . (→‎Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip: Expanding article)
• 2014-06-16T17:03:13‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (32,438 bytes) (-145)‎ . . (→‎Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip: WP:UNDUE rewrote/reduced text)
• 2014-06-16T16:57:05‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (32,583 bytes) (-471)‎ . . (→‎Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip: WP:UNDUE rewrote/reduced text)
• 2014-06-16T16:24:13‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (33,054 bytes) (-528)‎ . . (→‎Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip: WP:POV remove propaganda)
• 2014-06-16T12:23:18‎ Yarron‎ . . (33,582 bytes) (-92)‎ . . (Undid revision 613122840 by Wickey-nl (talk) Please discuss how this line is acceptable for an encyclopedia entry.)
• 2014-06-16T10:27:31‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (33,674 bytes) (+44)‎ . . (→‎Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip: And quote this unreliable source more properly)
• 2014-06-16T10:21:13‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (33,630 bytes) (-518)‎ . . (→‎Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip: WP:SYNTH remove refs unrelated to article)
• 2014-06-16T10:12:20‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (34,148 bytes) (-171)‎ . . (→‎Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip: WP:UNDUE shortened quote)
• 2014-06-16T10:10:20‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (34,319 bytes) (-1,679)‎ . . (→‎Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip: Beyond scope of article; also excessive quote: WP:UNDUE)
• 2014-06-16T10:02:50‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (35,998 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (→‎Israel in the Gaza War: better known as)
• 2014-06-16T09:53:13‎ Wickey-nl‎ . . (35,950 bytes) (+92)‎ . . (→‎Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Nothing wrong with this quote)
• 2014-06-15T17:33:13‎ Yarron‎ . . (35,858 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Using the term "occupying" is non-neutral. Therefore changed it to "military". The report is indicative of a statistic, therefore the "occupy" conclusion is subject to a neutral entry for an encyclopedia.)
• 2014-06-15T17:03:24‎ Brewcrewer‎ . . (35,860 bytes) (-91)‎ . . (→‎Israeli–Palestinian conflict: partial revert. I see this sentence as not having the proper tone for an encyclopedia.)
• 2014-06-15T17:00:16‎ Sean.hoyland‎ . . (35,951 bytes) (+127)‎ . . (straightforward attributed account. there is nothing controversial or non-neutral about this content, including referring to the israeli military forces that administer the occupied territories as "occupation forces", just like many RS) (undo)
• 2014-06-15T15:55:58‎ Yarron‎ . . (35,824 bytes) (-40)‎ . . (Removed words that assume a conclusion that is in dispute and therefore presents bias. Also removed two unnecessary words. The statements complete original intent remains intact.)
• 2014-06-15T15:24:32‎ Yarron‎ . . (35,864 bytes) (-7)‎ . . ("Revealing" indicates uncovering a truth. Since this is disputed by the prior reports indicated, this must be considered as a "reporting" as opposed to a "revealing".)
• 2014-06-15T15:01:53‎ Yarron‎ . . (35,871 bytes) (-98)‎ . . (Removed the sentence "That's the equivalent of one Palestinian child killed by Israel every 3 days for almost 13 years." This line is made redundant by the previous sentence which provides the objective data. It also presents bias.)

Your first edit at 2014-06-16T09:53:13 was a straightforward revert of Brewcrewer's edit at 2014-06-15T17:03:24 which removed a direct quote of the cited source.

Yarron, violated 1RR at 2014-06-16T12:23:18 and that edit split your sequence of edits so that rather than being a series of consecutive edits (i.e. one revert), they became 2 edits.

Whether the 2nd series of edits after Yarron's 1RR violation constitutes a revert is a judgment call. Although you didn't revert the removal of content by Yarron again and your edits changed long standing content in a different section of the article, the "Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip" section, that was not edited by anyone else, a literal reading of the rule described a WP:3RR could treat your second series of edits as a second revert. The policy says "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". Your second series of edits did, strictly speaking, reverse the actions of other editors who added that material. That section is long standing material. I think the actions of the other editors that you reversed occured over 2 years ago in May 2012, but admins can, and clearly Ed did in this case, treat an action like that as edit warring/a revert in WP:ARBPIA. The revert description "reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" doesn't say anything about the length of time between the "actions of other editors" and the reversal of those actions so whether something constitutes a revert is a judgment call. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• A real problem with the 1rr restrictions are that they are encouraging, enabling and giving unfair advantage to the numerous socks that operate in the topic area. It's a crazy situation when admins are blocking long term good faith editors on the basis of a report filed by an obvious sock account. Dlv999 (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The weaknesses in the system certainly favor the psychopath, which I assume is why there seem to be so many of those usually quite hard to meet people active in the topic area, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure the weaknesses really matter in the long run though. Disruption will carry on happening everyday in multiple articles (and it seems to be getting a bit worse, not unexpectedly I suppose). Wikipedia isn't likely to find a technical solution to sockpuppetry soon. Stricter entry requirements to the topic area aren't likely to be introduced. Ending anonymous editing isn't likely to happen. Even so, I think the sockpuppets and POV pushers are wasting their time. In the long run, content based on distortions and policy abuse won't survive. I don't know why they bother. I think the best way to deal with it is to just carry on, even if it means walking away from articles disrupted by socks and going back when they have got bored and left. Work on other things, make articles better, load up photos, write an article about these guys[1][2][3] or about what's happening in the Jordan Valley to provide broader coverage or do what you are doing at 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens to ensure balance and make sure that Wikipedia isn't misused. The weaknesses in the system never seem to get fixed but the content does. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sean, this interpretation of revert is quite weird, as it defines every edit other than addition of original text as being a revert. I can imagine that in this context "same or different material" refers to reverts that contain additional editing together with the plain revert (that is a covered, implicit revert). --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Rethinking about the definition A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material:

This makes only sense if we speak about the same or different material edited in the 24 hours following the point of time of the first revert. Only after the first revert there can be spoken of edit warring and the 1RR is only meant to stop edit warring. Ergo, I only violated the 1RR rule if I reverted such material, edited after the revert (which is clearly not the case). It still remains weird, if the 1RR rule is applied by adding two reverts of different parts of text. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice

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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Template:Z33

Al Baqa and Al Bowereh

Hi, I removed Al Baqa and Al Bowereh from the list of villages in the Hebron district, this because they are (administratively) both considered a part of Hebron, and are therefore listed above on the template (after Hebron). Thanks for starting the articles, btw!

As you can see from the Template:Hebron Governorate: lots of work remains to be done. I tried to tempt Al Ameer son into starting a couple of the red-linked articles (see here), perhaps you will instead? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I had overlooked them, as I did not expect them at the towns. I just noticed that the PCBS lists them as separate localities of the Hebron Governorate. I work on ad hoc base on specific subjects. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Gaza War, pov-pushing, 1rr

In [this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=615311703&oldid=615311345] edit you violated the 1RR restriction and you misused a source. The source was used to support the Israeli position and instead you added a quote how this was rejected. The fact that it was rejected is irrelevant for the purposes of source. The fact that it was rejected is represented elsewhere in the article. I can't see a reason why you want that added if not for POV-pushing. I will be glad to stand corrected upon another explanation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How is this a 1RR violation? There is an article talkpage. Not noticed? --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Try to jump over your shadow. The source gives the Israeli stated goal. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)