User talk:Samanthader

May 2015

Your recent editing history at Mockbul Ali shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
You need to explain on the talk page exactly why you want all the material removed. The claims you are calling unsubstantiated appear substantiated to other editors so you need to explain exactly why you consider them to be unsubstantiated. -- haminoon (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samanthader (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC) The general content is not in dispute, with some exceptions. For example the orginal poster has not read their own posted source in correctly, e.g. on ref 9 in the original post they have attributed the wrong Ali (Azad not Mockbul) as on the advisory panel of the former counter-terrorism chief to the CPS. (Mauro, Ryan 24 December 2010. "WikiLeaks: British Outreach to Muslim Community Fails". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved 1 February 2015.)[reply]

Further the original poster has used at least two sources that have a clear subjective point of view and actually do not add anything to the article and arguably violate Wikipedia's rules on subjectivity of editing bios of living people (Ref 6- Dobbie, Peter (15 July 2006). "We 'have it coming'... with help from the FO's own nest of vipers". The title in itselfshould be a clue to this being an opinion piece, and arguably therefore is not suitable source material for a bio). It is possible to replace the controverial source material but keeping the actual text in ths part of the article which is uncontroversial and by using an uncontroversial source. In another source used, the individual is accused of being an Islamist (as opposed to being a Muslim) which is controversial and higlhy subjective and potentially opens up Wikipedia to claims of libel and slander (Spyer, Jonathan (2011). The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict. Continuum. p. 161. ISBN 978-1137351531. Again this actual reference doesn't add anything to the text and is surplus to the article.

Similarly, other references are from a subjective source, including an indivdual who clearly has subjective views on the subject of the post and others who equally have subjective opinions open to dispute and are not suitable source material for a bio and does not meet Wikipedia's guidance on editing bios (Pasquill, Derek (17 January 2008). "I had no choice but to leak". New Statesman. Retrieved 1 February 2015., Cohen, Nick (November 2009). "The High Price of Patriotism". Standpoint. Retrieved 1 February 2015, Bright, Martin (12 November 2009). "Whitehall in turmoil over Muslim advisers". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 1 February 2015, k, Kenan (2006). From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and Its Legacy. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1438299648.). It is perfectly possible to keep the vast majority of the original text of the article without including these sources and replacing it with uncontroversial sources.

I have re-edited the article with the above points in mind, whilst ensuring the spirit of the original text remains and within the guidelines set by Wikipedia. 06:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing references doesn't help the article - it makes it even less reliable. It would better if you replaced the biased references with more reliable ones. The article never stated the subject was an islamist so you are wrong about the libel/slander charge.

You have removed the subject being an editor of Student Re-Present, being an Islamic issues adviser to the foreign office, and his work for the Labour party. Why? Is any of it factually incorrect?

You've also removed the stub tag (despite making the article shorter), and added a pointless en:Mockbul Ali link. Please don't. -- haminoon (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not just about references, but objective references. Having a source referenced in the article and accessible is potwnetially open to charges of slander and libellous. I did replace the biased references with reliable ones, but they were reverted again with no explanation why- despite me explaining in detail the issue with the sourcing. The issue of the elements of the biography that are questionable are based on repetition of the same one individual with subjective views being quoted repeatedly by other sources- as is the Labour party point. Those that are not I've left in- such as the Islamic Issues adviser point- Ive just tightened up the text so it reads better without repetation. Therefore it is best (in line with Wiki guidance)that this is left out or changed to be more general.

Samanthader (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand libel law. No you didn't replace all the biased references. The Labour Party is not a point that is being repeated - its an important part of the subject's biography. You removed all mention of the Labour Party from the article. I realise that they are not the most popular people at the moment but there was no good reason to do this. Likewise the Student Re-Present was removed entirely - it was never repeated. -- haminoon (talk)

Samanthader (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC) The point was about not adding biographical data which cannot be verified from independent sources- not secondary sources quoted in subjective articles. In that sense it is best for us to stick to data which on a basic level can be agreed on.[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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Samanthader reported by User:Haminoon (Result: ). Thank you. -- haminoon (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samanthader, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Samanthader!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rettetast (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]