User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2015/January

Arbitration Enforcement warning: WP:NEWBLPBAN

The following thread[1] was closed at WP:AE wherein you, along with 3 other users, have been admonished for conduct incompatible with WP:BATTLE on pages covered by WP:BLP and thus WP:NEWBLPBAN . In particular the interaction between you and User: Factchecker_atyourservice is noted as the locus of the issue here.
All 4 users are reminded that casting unfounded aspersions about other editors or misrepresenting their communications is unhelpful. Furthermore Factchecker_atyourservice is singled out for ad hominem remarks. Please note that recidivism will result in escalating sanctions. Multiple avenues of dispute resolution are open to resolving disputes productively (rather than trying to “win” by excluding the other) and without breaching the rules. You are all strongly advised to avoid making any personal remarks about other editors, speculating on their intentions or making value judgments about their contributions--Cailil ^talk 13:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, if you feel that your interaction with FCAYS is problematic I suggest you avoid him. If he starts following you to other pages then you can legitimately complain about his conduct as wikihounding. If such a situation occurs feel free to contact me--Cailil ^talk 13:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cailil: thank you. This ban will hopefully help to keep FCAYS at bay. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As chicken/egg problems go, it's not hard to figure out that my intemperate remarks about your editing habits came after the display of editing habits, in each instance. If you don't take greater care in the future to not misrepresent sources and trample all over NPOV — especially when dealing with public figures of whom you have a very low opinion — a sanction against me calling you out personally is not going to have much effect. The bulk of our interactions have been edit wars, not exchanges of personal comments. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Chawinda

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Chawinda. 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 WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

This comment is disruptive and incivil as it suggests that the only goal of those opposed to your way of thinking about this issue is to make Michael Brown look like a "heavy and scary ... 18-year-old black male" and thus has a chilling effect on the discussion. I have decided to warn rather than sanction with a ban or block but I would warn you that further misconduct will almost certainly result in a block or ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I accept the warning as a lesson not to take the bait. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Libertarianism

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Libertarianism. 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 WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi I have a question. I'm kinda new to wikipedia and Im im a discussion debate with someone about BLP-related content, which only has one source. The source is a tabloid article from 2002, and it's being used as a citation to support negative content about a LP in a a current article about a film... Ironically the subject of the content isn't even related to the film. So, How can I post the discussion to the BLP notice board? I appreciate any advice You might have . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pariah_(1998_film) This is the talk page discussion Id like posted on BLP Noticeboard. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shark310: You can post a request at WP:BLP/N indicating the issue. I will also take a look. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. 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 WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson

Thank you for participating in the BLP noticeboard discussion concerning Steven Emerson. If you have the chance, could you take a look at the Steven Emerson page, there seems to be some continuing dispute regarding BLP interpretations. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider your removal of my citation template. BLP is quite clear: Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. What "we" don't do is add contentious material to the lead of a BLP without reliable sources to back it up. You best remove that Islamophobia label, too. Atsme☯^Consult 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am fully aware of WP:BLP, so there is no need to endlessly quote policy. The material is sourced reliably (The Washington Post is a reliable source for the Islamophobia accusation, and there are many sources that describe the inaccuracies), so there is no BLP violation. Finally, please don't post here, there is a talk page for that article.- Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Cwobeel! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source

The user-edited sections of IMDB may not be used to source any information relative to a BLP.—Kww(talk) 04:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: Says who? I have checked the RS/N archives and this is not conclusive. In particular when this is not contentious material. Your interpretation of "contentious" is also wrong. Check a dictionary: causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial. How would that apply to awards and nominations of known actors? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the people that actually won any miscredited awards would argue about them.—Kww(talk) 05:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a very poor argument. This is unnecessary. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't a poor argument at all. This really is an important issue, and it is important that you understand WP:V's rule on citations. Once an editor has challenged information as inaccurate, it cannot be restored without a citation that supports it. It really is that simple. You need to be careful when you do it as well: your restoration this last time was improper once again, as the article listed a whole series of local awards that were nowhere to be found in your source. It was your responsibility, and only your responsibility, to ensure that the information you added back corresponded precisely to the citation you were adding. Fortunately, another editor has since done your job for you.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We have to agree to disagree. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly written policy. Whether you agree with the policy is irrelevant, so long as you follow it.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree again. IMDb is an OK source for material that is not contentious. Check the WP:RS/N archives and the fail IMDb policy. In any case, the point is moot now. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles are always improved when you leave them open for editing. Blanking and redirecting would have obliterated the article. So WP is better off by having articles than by deleting them, in particular when it was so easy to source. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If it was so easy to source, why did you fail to ever provide a citation that included all the information in the article? That even leaves aside your misconception that user edited pages can be reliable sources: the ones you pointed to have never been congruent with the article. Still, the point I am trying to leave you with is simple. I've pointed you at the relevant policies. Should you restore information that has been challenged to an article again without providing a citation to a reliable source that supports it, I will block you until such time as you agree to stop doing so.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to block any editor that adds material without a source, you will not have time for anything else. Look, I understand the issue, but this is a storm in a team cup, so let's drop it, shall we? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll drop it when I'm certain you understand the difference between initially adding material without a source (bad practice, but not blockable) and restoring challenged information without a source, which is blockable after a warning. You say you understand the issue, but I'm not seeing it in the discussion.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Think of the reader. These lists are super useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating WP:BLP, as provided for by WP:NEWBLPBAN, see the AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. 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.  Sandstein  16:30, 24 January 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."

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).

Cwobeel/Archives/2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After being told that IMDb was not suitable, I did not re-use it. Sandstein said that the block was because my statement indicated that I intend to continue violating the BLP policy in this manner.. Well, that is not the case: I don't. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC Also note that this was my first edits to any article related to awards, so a topic ban is just over the top and unwarranted. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC) )

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline for two reasons. First and foremost, an admin other than the blocking admin cannot unblock you. Second, you claim you've retired, which to some extent renders the block moot. Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2015 (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.

Also note that this was my first edits to any article related to awards, so a topic ban is just over the top and unwarranted. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC) )}}

I am not persuaded. Far from accepting that your actions violated the BLP policy, your most recent edits and statements continued to defend them ([2], [3], [4]). In addition, in the article edit in which you now cite a book instead of IMDB ([5]), the source does not match what you added to the article. For example, the book mentions 5 Golden Globe nominations, but your list comprises 7, the same number as in your previously uncited version (and even that may be wrong, IMDB lists 8). Your WP:BLP violations therefore also extend to the wilful misuse of sources. This does not convince me that you will not continue to violate the BLP policy after the block is lifted. Insofar as the appeal is directed to me, I decline it.  Sandstein  16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein: It is quite a thing to get a one week block for a couple of innocuous edits, at the same time I reach 10,000 edits fighting vandalism in Wikipedia. This block is a storm in a tea cup, started by an editor conducting a vendetta against me, and a net loss for the pedia. There was nothing in these edits to warrant a block, as I did stop once the discussion at BLP/N reached the understanding that IMDb was not acceptable as a source (despite the fact that WP:RS/N was ambiguous about this). I added the book source and immediately followed it up with a {{refimprove}} as customary as I saw that it needed improvement. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you neglect to mention that much of the data you added back in contradicted or was not supported by the sources you supplied. Why don't you see it as having been your responsibility to only add back information that you had sources for?—Kww(talk) 17:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Per a talk page message, I've struck the bit about the source misuse, which was an error on my part in reading the source, but there are enough indications of you making errors of fact because of sloppy sourcing in BLP articles that I maintain the block.  Sandstein  17:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is pointless arguing my case, and given the lack of understanding about how silly this last block is, I am done with participating. Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you would apply here. To those that made my editing in WP no longer fun, I say this: I trust that other editors would make you see how unproductive is what you have done. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't let this make you leave Wikipedia. I hope you do come back.Casprings (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Casprings for the comment, But how can I ensure this does not happen again when there is an editor (ChrisGulatieri) who has made it a priority to get me blocked with multiple posts in AN/I and AE including spurious accusations of defamation? It sucks the fun out of editing, and wastes an enormous amount of time. For example, to substantiate my claims of harassment I need to spend hours digging through diffs instead of editing. ChrisGualtieri has seemingly endless amounts of time; I don't. Lets make it clear, this block was silly. I have been a consistent contributor to BLP/N for a long time, and I am fully aware of BLP. There was no harm done and my intervention at least has prompted these articles to be kept and improved upon, which is what we should be all doing here. This incidents would not have been any issue in a normal situation, but when you have an editor pursuing a vendetta, it is disruptive, not useful, and a waste of everybody's time. Editors need to be acknowledged by their total sum of their contributions, and not penalized for a frivolous complaint from an editor with an agenda. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Cwobeel it is pointless for me to continue contributing, when the conversation is going in the direction it is going. When arbs and admins take such a position for three edits on an innocuous list of awards, without considering the total sum of my contributions to this project, I see no point in resuming editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement editing restriction: BLP

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from editing any list of awards or nominations of living people, with the exception of edits that consist only of adding accurate and reliable sources, subject to the usual exceptions.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  11:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

{{retired}}

Don't leave

Most of the time that i see "retired" banners supposed, I wish it were actually true. In your case I hope it's just a brief holiday.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Please don't leave. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 03:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Piss-poor block from an WP:AE discussion with an admin who was clearly involved. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. You should take this to Wikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeCasprings (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Casprings, Two kinds of pork, Lixxx235, Lugnuts: Thanks for your comments. I made three edits to these pages first time ever, first sourcing to IMDb [6], [7], and [8], as I did not know that iMDB was not an acceptable source (I checked the RS/N archives, and what I found was inconclusive). Once I was made aware of it, I looked for others sources and found a book as a source to the Susan Sarandon list [9]], followed by a request to improve the sourcing as I saw that a few of the items were not matching the source [10]. The result of these actions was a one week block, and an indefinite ban on lists of awards and nominations [11]. My edits were made in good faith, and my comments were based on the understanding that there was no harm done. In my unblock request, I made it clear that I was not going to continue using IMDb and that I did not intend to pursue any further edits in the area [12]. This was a heavy-handed intervention, with no consideration to my other contributions to the project, and that is the reason I have taken this path. If there is no appreciation for one's effort, and if a ax-grinding editor can get this kind of response from admins, I'd rather invest my time into something more rewarding. Returning to edit after this mean that I will have to accept that this is the way of the land, and I am not sure I can accept that, and I don't see the ArbCom undoing admin action here. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it deserves to at least be looked at. I hope this isn't too forward, but I started a thread to have it reviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Review_of_Block_on_User:Cwobeel Casprings (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, for the effort, but it will require an appeal to ArbCom, which I am not sure I want to pursue at this time. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

For whatever is worth, my intention was never to cause harm in editing these lists of awards. That is not an area I edit, and my response was based on my belief that articles such as these can be given a bit of a leeway, while finding sources. I see now that there is a pretty strong view that contradicts mine, despite my consistent work in patrolling BLP/N, this is the first time I have encountered such a viewpoint. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, edits made in good faith resulting in a block. It's wrong to assume everyone knows that IMDB can't be used as a source. You didn't know this, but instead of being given a polite reminder, it goes this far. Worst case scenario, you take a week out and come back as a better editor. Blocks like this do no good to the project. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ax grinding

@ChrisGualtieri: "Ax-grinding" editor is defined by your own actions:

• [13]
• [14]
• AN/I report againts me, only to belatedly apologize later on for I apologize for being an ass - I see I am being one again. [15]
• Other attempts to get me topic banned, in which you again close it with Someone close this - I retract it. I am being an ass... and overreacted to what Cwobeel inserted [16]
• frivolous accusation of defamation [17], which you retracted after being told to do so by an uninvolved editor
• Poisionig the pill with people commenting here [18]
• Not having the decency to ping me when discussing me and my edits with the admin that blocked me (not the first time) [19]

I can go on, but enough time wasted. The above list demonstrates how one can childishly misuse WP processes to "get even" with someone you don't like.

After a long, protracted, and vigorous dispute process at Shooting of Michael Brown, and Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor), in which you not only personally attacked me on more than one occasion, and opposed me on everything at that article, you have been looking for a way to at all costs get me blocked, admonished or banned. So don't come here to cry of NPA, after the silly and unproductive AE report that resulted on this.

You seem to care more for your viewpoints than for this project, and I have had enough of you for a lifetime. The only reason I may consider returning to editing after my block, is to demonstrate that your antagonistic and childish tactics would fail. Look, I may not like the way you behave, your super-narrow interpretation of some policies, and the way in which you interact with me and others, but I would never wish for an editor that does good work to leave the project, let alone make someone leave because of my actions. Maybe you are better off in pursuing simpler articles to edit such as parks, and leave contentious and difficult articles to the grownups. And yes, you can answer here if you want, but thread with care, as my patience is running pretty thin with you. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Huffington Post is unacceptable for BLPs. Daily Kos is unacceptable for BLPs. BLP matters require high-quality reliable sources, but it has been contradictory or other errors that have caused conflict. This one edit was the subject of much debate. Allow me to explain why this one edit is so problematic. For O'Donnell, the same source is used in a contradictory manner in the first two sentences. Saying Wilson did not fill out an incident report and then saying he did - when he did not. The third sentence says the Ferguson Police Department did not fill out an incident report - they did and this was known on August 22nd.[20] The Huffington Post asserts it exists (another contradiction) and attacks the police, but cannot get its facts right about time and the police response. The false claim are included in the second half of the section and Cwobeel did fight to keep it in - failing to recognize the obvious error in this too-long section. I don't want to be an ass and certainly try not to be, but you do not listen and do not understand. This leaves me with two choices: to either ignore such contradictory and inaccurate material or remove it - leading to a confrontation. Do you, Cwobeel, still think that your edit was acceptable and accurate? Do you still think Huffington Post is a reliable source for BLPs? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Huffington Post is fine. They have editor oversight and all of that. But more importantly, their general reputation among their peers is shown by the fact that have won multiple awards for journalism, including the Pulitzer and Peabody. However, it can be discussed and we can WP:AGFCasprings (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

HuffPo is primarily usable for opinions cited properly as opinions. For claims of fact in a BLP, especially of any "contentious fact", HuffPo is a poor choice. (Actually there are no infallible sources for contentious claims about celebrities that I can find) Also note many cases where prize-winning stories later are found to have problems (Hari's Orwell prize, and a few writers for the NYT in the past have had awards revoked - "prize winning" != "infallible" by any means). [21] Wood's prize was for his 10 part feature on wounded veterans. Peabody awards have also gone to Al Jazeera English ("From December 2010, when protests erupted in Tunisia, through 201, Al Jazeera was a network of record for millions of viewers throughout the world. On-the-ground reporting was thorough, enterprising and brave"), etc. thus that is not an absolute vote of confidence either. Found HuffPo and Peabody - HuffPo's TV reviewer is on the "Board of Jurors", but no apparent awards from Peabody - might you give a cite for that award please? [22] is the official complete list of Peabody Awards through 2013. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I am not re-litigating the HuffPo as a source or previous content disputes. This is not what this discussion is about. What I am trying to do here is to make you see that your MO may not be as aligned with the aims of this project as you may believe.

You have close to a half a million edits in just 3 years [23], which is impressive, so I assume this is not just a passing hobby for you, but a massive commitment of time and energy. When one is so committed to anything, it tends to color everything one does. You need to accept that your prolific output does not grant you taking a dismissive approach to what you may consider lesser mortals, as this project lives thanks to the aggregated contributions of a diverse group of people, including those that you would disagree with. Every edit counts and Wikipedia does not need you.

When we get to a point in which blocks and bans are sought against rivals as you did here, and when over-worked admins don't take the time to look a bit deeper to understand the motives behind an AE post and ask questions, it rewards the wrong behaviors and the project is the worse for it.

So, here is my question to you: Given that you knew that awards and nominations was a topic area that I have never edited before, can you honestly disprove to me, that your AE post was nothing more than retaliation, and that your intent was more about attempting to diminishing my standing by advocating for sanctions agains me than anything else? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I firmly reject your assertions because I spent much time trying to explain to you why your edits are so problematic. Clearly, you do not listen to me and you think Wikipedia is a battleground of sorts where disagreeing with you implies an agenda or motive. Cwobeel, you defend Huffington Post, namely this Huffington Post source which calls Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson a liar even when was incontrovertibly wrong. You have supported inclusions of gross BLP allegations of no factual basis because it was an opinion. Lastly, you went so far as to remove a source which contained the police report, with the edit summary "we had discussed this extensively. There was no FPD report, only County Police report". While in the very same edit, you removed the source which contains the document! I've given three examples of clearly problematic issues arising from simple corrections. The last, which follows my first post, clearly shows you removing the very existence of a document while asserting that it does not exist.

Now, I've chosen to believe that you do not understand or (in the case of the last edit) know what you are doing. There is no "axe to grind", but I understand your perspective and how you feel. Unfortunately, you continue to misunderstand the gentle and then increasingly firm stance I've taken. You are a colleague who has erred and then dismissed and derided attempts to resolve the situation - you are not a "rival" or "enemy" of any sort. I wish you could recognize that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You have, again, chosen not to answer my question, and instead tried to re-litigate a dispute long resolved. My question was very specific, and your lack of response is very telling. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion

Do you wish to appeal your block as discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_Block_on_Cwobeel? NE Ent 12:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I am kindly asking for a review of the sanctions you imposed, on the following basis:

• These where my first edits to the topic area, done in response to a discussion on BLP/N, which I patrol. I made a total of 3 edits restoring content from blanked articles,[24], [25], [26] as I believed in good faith that these lists could be easily sourced.
• I declared in no ambiguous terms that I had no intent in pursuing editing these articles
• I acknowledge that sourcing is required, and that my initial understanding about the use of IMDb for list of awards and nominations was faulty
• I looked for suitable sources, added one book source to one of the articles,[27] , followed by asking for additional sources to be found to improve the references.[28]
• I will be more careful in the future and not restore material in BLPs without careful sourcing, regardless if the article is a just a list or a full-text article.
• The filling party for the AE is an editor with which I have had a long and protracted content disputes on other articles over past few months.[29] In any other set of circumstances, this would not have resulted in a AE report, let alone a one week block and a topic ban.
• Blocks and bans are supposed to be preventative, and my statements above clearly states that I have no intention in pursuing the topic area.

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein:: I would very much appreciate it if you could review my request above. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your notification the first time. I'm unblocking you in the hope that you will not again re-add unsourced contested material to BLP articles and that you will use reliable sources henceforth.  Sandstein  06:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to say sorry that you had to deal with the abuse of the self-proclaimed "god" of arb enforcement. wiki needs a "declaration of independence" with a list of grievances which can be submitted to the arbitration committee to get this admin banned from enforcement once and for all. He continuously uses the guise of "arbitration decision" to impose blocks that only he or a consensus can remove - somewhat similar to checkuser or oversight blocks - which are powers only given to identified and elected editors. he does this repeatedly in situations where he should not, and a clear consensus either during or after the fact proves that.

sorry again you had to deal with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.130 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you, we all make mistakes from time to time. We are here to build an encyclopedia, the rest is noise. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I assure you he was making no mistake, he meant to do what he did. he enjoys the fake "power" he feels by being able to place these irreversable blocks unilaterally, and enjoys it even more when people complain/form consensus against his blocks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.130 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, but I prefer to WP:AGF. Cynicism is toxic. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

When will you become an admin then? Maybe if you were to take over enforcement in good faith and assuming good faith, the other admin currently "ruling" enforcement would have to stop. on that note, assuming good faith is impossible when time shows again and again that there is bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.130 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a happening thing. I prefer to edit articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gun show loophole

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun show loophole. 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 WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sharif Abdullah

Thanks for fixing an issue instead of just blindly reverting a somewhat-helpful edit. 174.62.79.247 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)