User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2015/March

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cwobeel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In the article on Loretta Lynch, President Obama's nominee for U.S. Attorney General, you spell out the entire name of the country. As there is a link for Lynch's prospective title earlier in that same opening paragraph, it seems a little silly to me. I shortened it simply to "Attorney General," since it is clear in context which A.G. post (not for a state, or some other country) is under discussion. You undid my change and restored the full title AND the full name of the U.S.A. Why?

Why? Because our readers are not just in the US. We have a global audience, and unless you clearly describe it as Attorney General of the United States, it will not be clear. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Democratic Party (United States). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to edit war you there, I didn't see that you had replaced it, I thought I had just neglected to move it correctly. We can discuss further on article talk. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No problems. I think that passage is highly relevant for the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We are both at/over 3rr I believe. I'm willing to keep going forward collaboratively, but we should probably start moving more to talk page to avoid getting into trouble. (Note, this is not a threat, I have no intent of taking you to 3rr over this stuff) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right we should stop and collaborate. Thanks for the reminder. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word "allegedly" is justified, as Brown was never convicted of the convenience store robbery. Whatever 'consensus' drew the conclusion that he was the perpetrator is irrelevant, and to suggest otherwise is journalistically unsound. JoyGrenade (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a notification that you are party to an Arbitration Enforcement listing at - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision and for restoring content removed on BLP grounds during a dispute at BLPN on the page Steven Emerson, you have been blocked from editing for a period of a fortnight. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

{{unblock}}

For the benefit of HJ Mitchell regarding this block, there is no BLP violation as discussed in BLP/N, given that the sources are reliable and unimpeachable, see below. The claims made by ChrisGualtieri are false and misleading. Filing an AE report is a serious matter, but he chose to mislead by omitting information, as a way to have the uper hand in a content dispute (this is not the first time). - Cwobeel (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam,^[1] while Carl Ernst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse.^[2] Emerson responded to these and similar characterizations^[3][4][5] in an op-ed for Fox News, stating that criticism of Islam labeled as Islamphophia, and the labeling of "Islamic terrorism" as a racist generalization of Muslims, is "one of the biggest and most dangerous national security frauds of the past 30 years."^[6]

The supposed BLP-violating material is instead very well-sourced negative criticism from scholarly sources. I don't think we should rewrite policy to remove the ability from Wikipedia users to tell the reader that scholars have said negative things about Steven Emerson. The scholars are German media expert Kai Hafez, distinguished American theologian Carl Ernst, and the editorial board of the book The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, which is American theologian Juliane Hammer and Islamic studies professor Omid Safi of Duke University.[1] Scholars are our highest sources, so this negative material is of the highest quality. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I wish you had given me the chance to defend myself before issuing a block as customary. In any case, if my action at Steven Emerson was blockable, then how would you respond to exactly the same edit by Binksternet after ChrisGualtieri's revert? [2] Surely you would not block him, would you? Either there is a BLP violation or there is not; you can't just ignore the content and make a determination just because you believed that I acted against consensus.

I understand that the block was made because you judged me as having been blocked before, and assumed the worst, but and the end of the day you need to look at the context and not assume unnecessarily just because my block log that I acted against policy (I learn from my mistakes, you know?).

There was consensus to keep the material, so there was nothing disingenuous in quoting the discussion on my edit summary. The disingenuous and uncalled for, was the filing of the case by a long-time opponent in content disputes that has used BLP numerous times as way to stifle discourse. See comments by Nomoskedasticity and MrX in the different boards. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:, will you be reviewing this block? As of this morning, the supposedly BLP violating material about which you issued the block is back in the article courtesy of other editors which were involved in the BLP/N discussion, so what is the point of this block? If there was no BLP violation, on what basis am I still blocked? Maybe accept the fact that the filer of the AE report was wrong to start with and your block in response to that spurious filing, a mistake? I think it is time for you do the right thing. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO this was a hair trigger and illl conceived block. There is obviouosly consensus this was not a BLP violation, so I can't fathom the rationale for blocking in the first place.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Cwobeel, I didn't see your request for me to post your appeal until just now. I wanted to make sure you are aware that by requesting an appeal at AE, a consensus of uninvolved admins is required to lift the sanction. If you post the appeal on AN, a consensus of uninvolved editors can suffice to lift the sanction. See the Important notes: section at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement.- MrX 20:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: Oh well... Not sure is possible to change venue now (is there a way to check if possible?). Thanks for the heads up. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel--not sure if you remember working with me in the past, but I took a bit of a Wikibreak for a while to catch up on my studies. Anyways, I noticed something on the Justin Amash article that seemed to be inappropriate, and I wanted to get your thoughts on it as an inclusionist user with whom I've had a constructive and positive rapport in the past. It's near the top of the article where I am dealing with an editor who believes it is appropriate to include information calling the member an "asshole". Cheers! →Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 01:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Hubbardc

Hi Hubbardc, that comment seems to be a a violation of WP:UNDUE for the article's lede, and maybe also an outright WP:BLP violation if that is the only source. I suggest you place a report at WP:BLP/N; there are good folks there with experience on BLPs that can weigh in on this. I am currently blocked (a sanction which I am appealing [3]) so I can't assist you with it directly. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I really enjoy the War on Welfare material as voluminous as it is it seems fairly odd there is no mention of how the USA defines poverty stricken as a constant bottom percentile insuring the war will never be won. In fact, I read with awe these vacillating percentages as if they were random. Keep up the good work! Without such knowledgeable editors presenting the material from a NPOV there would be no Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.13.221.120 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You should upgrade to the newer one click archive. It gives much better edit summaries (compare my recent archives on the shooting article, to the ones you just did in unrest) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I've unblocked you because the block is no longer serving a preventative purpose given that the article has been fully protected and the immediate issue appears to be resolved. That said, I am, with regret, going to un-archive the original AE request for further comment, because I believe that your longer-term conduct on BLPs leaves a lot to be desired. I hope you'll comment there and that the process will be more inquisitive than adversarial, as far as these things can be. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have commented on the AE. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin42. Your interactions with me gives me hope that despite our differences, we can disagree without being disagreeable. I'd wish that was the case with others as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey just wanted to say welcome back. Glad this unblock came thru.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Largest cities of Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Is there any problem with the change I made ? I was planning to change couple airports in the same way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.192.87.8 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@139.192.87.8: Sorry, that was a false positive. Thank you for your contributions. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of my changes ;-) I should maybe add the source to it, but I don't really know how to add it as it is password protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.192.87.8 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel your frustration. I find the user's edits extremely pointy. Since HJ Mitchell knows about it, I think we should wait for him to weigh in. Optakeover^(Talk) 22:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have messaged the user. Sorry for my correspondence with both of you here, because on edit wars I need to be fair. But I agree with you that the user is being extremely disruptive. I'll let the admins take over. Optakeover^(Talk) 06:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to take down your "wikibreak" sign.

HTH,

Love,

A Secret Admirer 98.114.161.32 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cwobeel. I just made a Talk page edit which produced an edit conflict with your edit, and rather than re-submit it to correct the conflict, I just let it overwrite what you just posted. Your comment was responding to a comment I had moved to Admin Callanecc's Talk page for further discussion. I agree with you that my comment was civil, and you can re-post your opinion at Callanecc's page if you think it's necessary, but I'm confident he will come to the same conclusion. Sorry about the confusion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

. . . really mean "strenuous"? Or tenuous? :) Writegeist (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

meant strenuous: energetic, or zealously active. But tenuous would have worked as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Project for the New American Century. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)