User:Nableezy/DG


 * Reverting Gush Shalom claiming to be a Rv disruptive WP:POINTy deliberate insertion of deprecated sources into Wikipedia. Gush Shalom is not deprecated.
 * Rollback of user replacing a Daily Mail link with a non-deprecated source. When queried about this David responded the blind behaviour is not on my end. Please stop deliberately inserting, or re-inserting, deprecated sources into Wikipedia articles. Never apologizes for using his administrative tools to edit-war out a source that is not deprecated.

Indiscriminate removal of clearly reliable expert sources: At William P. Quigley, David repeatedly removes basic biographical details about the subject, sourced to a piece written by the subject of the article. He edit-wars against unanimous agreement on the talk page against his position that ABOUTSELF does not apply to what William and his wife write about themselves. He makes up entirely policy that one cannot use a deprecated source for biographical details when written by the subject himself. He does not answer another user writing that they restored the source as ABOUTSELF clearly applies, instead continuing to edit-war instead.
 * Removes Benny Morris, an academic expert on the causes of the Palestinian exodus, as extreme fringe non-RS
 * Removes Sara Roy, an academic expert on the economy of Gaza, writing abo
 * Removes Edward Said writing about himself (WP:ABOUTSELF) and David Price (anthropologist), an academic expert on US government surveillance of activist academics, discussing the US government surveillance of Said, an activist academic. In the RSN thread about this specific topic, David does not even attempt to engage on the substantive topic of does this source overcome the presumption of unreliability of a deprecated source, he merely asserts that it is deprecated the end. His contribution to the talk page was flippant and dismissive, as was his contribution to the RSN thread, a contribution that did not even attempt to address the topic, only claimed non-existent personal attacks and revert warring was occurring. At the time David removed the Price piece, and still to this point, there is substantial support for the use of that piece as a source in the Said article.
 * Edit warring
 * Reverts:, , discussed on talk page with David's position finding no support at all
 * At Amos Kenan, Removal by DG, restored by editor 2, removed again by DG 20 minutes later, restored by editor 3, re-removed by DG 14 hours later
 * Camp 1391: convenience link, reverted by an admin no less, and then immediately re-reverts. Or removing an interview between Ari Shavit and Benny Morris, and then re-reverting
 * Mairead Maguire: removal of author's own work, reverted and then immediately re-reverts. Nothing on the talk page, simply enforcing his position by reverts

In the most recent ANI, some of the comments ignored by David were: David closed the original RFC, has been indiscriminately removing sources at a rate of several per minute, and voted in the follow up RFC. Given his clearly stated views on the source, his outside of WP:DEPS understanding of deprecation in general, and his edit-warring over the source, is it even reasonable to pretend that David could be considered an uninvolved closer in the initial RFC? Can he reasonably be considered to uninvolved on the topic of deprecation at all when his actions are routinely disputed as being disruptive at ANI? Can Admin literally play the role of judge (in closing the RFC), executioner (in enforcing his expansive understanding through edit-warring) and jury (in voting in the follow up RFC)?
 * "having forgotten that you were the one that closed that discussion, I am a bit troubled that you did so considering that you have an understanding of deprecation that is at odds with what has been documented as being its definition. To do so and then take dedicated action to remove all instances of citations, over and past disputes with individual edits made during this process, strikes me as taking a few too many bites from the apple.", Rosguill talk 22:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that you are aware that there is discussion to review DEPS and determine what deprecation means and how deprecated citations should be handled, continuing to act on your stance of the read of policy is a FIAT violation. --Masem (t) 02:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, and as usual, you are not addressing the substantive issue of why you are failing to follow WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE by quickly seeking out an alternative reliable source (or at the very least inserting a cn tag rather than removing easily verifiable content), or assess whether the use/mention of a depreciated source is valid. Don't tell me – it isn't compulsory, right? Well that's great for you but when you're rattling through 2 or more articles per minute (which simply cannot be done with considered judgement), it's very much less so for everybody else. wjemather 11:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Involvement

When made aware of the extensive socking in the RFC, David admitted that the RFC cannot be relied on, yet made his own personal viewpoint very clear that CP is a trash source (again at RSN and should be deprecated. And as such has continued to maintain that the source remain deprecated despite being unable to point to any valid consensus for doing so, see his response to my asking where such a consensus exists after he admits the prior RFC may be considered "irretrievably white-anted by the socking".