User talk:Bob drobbs

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts
User:Bob drobbs seems to be editing this article exclusively. Assuming good faith, I nevertheless question whether this account was created for the purposes of advocacy of a specific point of view in violation of Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality. Any response to this? User:Pedant (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The response is that this is the wrong place. Please review WP:TALK. Breein1007 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * * We all have to start somewhere,
 * * current events tend to draw new editors,
 * * new editors are expected to make some mistakes as they learn the process,
 * * this particular one is not actually editing articles as much as participating in talk pages,
 * * this is not the place to discuss an editor
 * * and if you do want to discuss him you do it on his talk page instead of posting an unsigned accusation on his USER: page.
 * Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've edited anonymously a bit in the past. But the flotilla attack was a very interesting political event, and the protection on it did inspire me to actually create an account.  Pedant, your accusations of me "exclusively" writing about this are false.  I have also written a bit about the Ahmadis; another important political event.  But most importantly, I believe that every single comment I've made in the discussions (and my few edits) have all been in good faith, with the ideas of truth, fairness, and good writing in mind.


 * If you have specific issues with any of my statements or edits, please let me know. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I collapsed the thread over at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Concerns with Bob drobbs' editing belong here or at WP:DR. Bob drobbs, I've offered to act as a go-between if an editor has a concern about another editor which they don't feel comfortable raising themselves. That offer is open to one and all - yourself included. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Flash (photography), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edited under a previous name
Hey Bob,

Out of curiosity, have you previously edited on Wikipedia using a different user name? NickCT (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Never. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to "seek to be more precise", do you think you might want to revise your previous statement?  Bob, I really don't have anything against you.  Either now or in past "lives", but I'd appreciate honesty here. NickCT (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're basically calling me a liar here. I would appreciate if you followed WP:AGF.    I was as specific as I can be.  No, I have never edited under another user name.  Period.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok.... Well, I'll "assume" I got this wrong then. Good day to you sir.  NickCT (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, regarding your comment here. Look dude, I'm not calling you a liar.  All I'm saying is that the editing pattern looks extremely suspisous.  If you aren't Breein1007, you'll look at the chronology I provided objectively and agree that it does look pretty suspisious, then you'll forgive my reluctance to take you at your word.  If you are Breein1007, you'll probably continue deceptively expressing a sense of righteous indignation.  If I did get this wrong and the odd editing pattern is just a coincidence, I'm sure you'll WP:AGF and recognize that I'm not doing this to try and persecute innocent people.
 * Unfortunately it's the case with I-P issue that a lot of people seem to resort to dastardly tricks like WP:SOCKing. If you think others out there are engaged in this kind of activity, I'd encourage you to "stalk and watch their every move" (even if that person is me). WP:SOCKing and other deceptive behavior undermines WP's mission.  NickCT (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do _not_ understand what is suspicious. Two editors were editing a article at similar times, which happened to be on the headlines of newspapers all over the world.  By those standards, FightingMac and I are the same person because we were both editing the Dominique Strauss Kahn article.  Sheer idiocy.
 * So, what _exactly_ do you find suspicious about two editors editing a top new item while it's in the headlines? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may be missing the point. The question isn't which articles, but the "chronology".  You see one editor edit for 2 hrs, then stop.  3 minutes later the other logs on, edits for 2hrs and stops. 3 minutes, the same thing.....
 * That's a pretty strong indicator of socking if it occurs often enough. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but you're on a witchhunt, so you find what you want to see. Out of curiosity, have you ever plugged yourself into that tool comparing yourself to various other users? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * re "you're on a witchhunt" - Could be. But don't worry.  If you're not a witch, you're not going to get burned.  re "tool comparing yourself to various other users" - No.  And it's certainly possible I'm getting false positives.  however; comparing your contribs to FightingMac, it's immediately obvious you're probably not the same person, b/c over the past 10 days you've both made complex edits in some cases at the very same minute.  V. unlikely a sock would behave like that. NickCT (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  If you're not a witch, you're not going to get burned. <= LOL. That's what they told accused witches, right? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (*chuckle*) Probably. But seriously, the whole SPI thing really operates in an "innocent until proven guilty fashion" (trust me, I've been on the receiving end before).  If you're not socking, the correct response to this kind of thing is just to yawn, and shrug it off. NickCT (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A really good way to handle this type of thing is ignore it, or ignore after you've answered the question once. Less work, less aggravation. Gerardw (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be under a misapprehension
Unless you have been editing under this account then the remark to which you responded on NickCT's talk page did not concern you (even if it had, I'm not sure what bearing my past mistakes would have re. your current, alleged, misbehaviour).


 * My mistake then. I thought you were talking about me.  NickCT is hassling me, calling me a sock puppet, and implying that I'm a liar (see above).  Since your comment is about someone else, apparently he's doing the same thing to someone else; rightfully or not. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Amin Abu Rashid - BLP discussion?
In one of your edits on this page you referred to a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. I'm curious what the result of that discussion was, but I couldn't find it. I found the noticeboard, but I found no discussion for Amin Rashid.

Can you please tell me where to find it?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bob. I am a little unsure which edit it was on this page but the only BLP discussion that involved his was a small one here Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive122 - for more than this I will need a diff to the discussion, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... that's probably it, but sadly it looks like there wasn't really any consensus in there.   Oh well.
 * FYI, here's a link to your [edit summary] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case
Please do not replace without consensus a claim that the living subject has found libelous and insulting, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And, I'll ask you to stop engaging in POV censorship. But we'll continue this on the noticeboard where it belongs.  It seems that you're in a minority who seeks to keep this lawsuit on the page, while censoring the details of it.  The majority supports either including the details of the libel case _or_ deleting it entirely.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob drobbs. As I've said before Off2riorob, I appreciate that you're fanatically observant of WP:BLP and I don't like the idea of victim blaming, but the tidbit in question here meets both WP:V and WP:N.  You're over stepping your bounds in continually removing it. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

revert war
Hi, WP:Edit warring - is this the way you are wanting to progress with this issue? clearly the issue is not resolved and the stable version is the primary location until then at least as I have experienced in the past. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop reverting and accept this as a WP:3RR warning, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is not how I want to proceed. I want to find a workable compromise. But if you're going to storm out of the room, reject mediation, and insist that you get to be the sole arbiter for what gets to be in the article, then I will go ahead and make the changes based on the _only_ compromise which seems possible here. So, is this how _you_ wish to progress with the issue?
 * Your primary demand seems to be that we not put anything in the article which in any way implies she's a "prostitute". That's solvable by deleting the libel case. Will you accept that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you won't accept that compromise, I'll ask you instead to please agree to mediation to help find a solution here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

note - its not a compromise to repeatedly revert and add prostitute, please stop re adding this. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Errant suggested that we add more "context and clarification". Bus Stop suggested the text.  So, yes, it _is_ a compromise to add this additional statement calling the Post's article "false".
 * Though, I do realize that it's a compromise you're unwilling to accept. Once again, I invite you to join me in mediation and try to come to a consensus on this.   -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

re your comment
Hey Bob,

Wanted to respond to this.

While I think your position is probably supported by policy, I'm not sure you should pursue mediation at this point. Typically I find an RFC is a quicker, easier way to resolve these kinds of disputes. Let me know if you want help fashioning an RfC. NickCT (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

moving forward
Hi, as an agreeable solution. I will not oppose the removal of the content that says that the maid has filed a claim of libel against the New York Post. I don't really agree with its removal but I more oppose repeating the claimed libel/insult in our article. If more libel charges are presented and the issue of claimed defamatory articles is reported and raised in profile I reserve an option to re-present the first legal case for reconsideration/discussion/consensus inclusion. I hope this is an agreeable solution and we can request the lowering off the protection on the article and end the dispute. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think think it's the best solution either. That is the nature of compromise -- No party loves it, but everyone is willing to accept it.  And you are welcome to keep your right to argue for the re-inclusion of it at some later date, if it becomes more notable.  Moving on ...  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, hopefully we can move forward from a fresh perspective and leave this dispute in the past. - Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me as though you've compromised to keep notable and verifiable information out of an article. Another sacrifice to the BLP fanatics?  How scared we are to say that somebody said someone, somewhere involved in something scandalous might have perhaps been looking for money for sex.  NickCT (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not the position as I understand - some users wanted to add a disputed press allegation against someone - other users have supported adding the detail but not repeating the specific wording of the claimed libel/insulting claim - sadly imo User:Bob drobbs/the users that wanted to repeat the alleged defaming detail about a living person in our article have objected to the inclusion of the basic detail without inclusion of the actual claimed press allegation, this has sadly resulted imo to censorship of the libel action. IMO the best position was to mention the legal libel action but not to repeat the details of it in our article - it was enough to provide the basic detail and a WP:reliable external link to where the details were already presented without us needing to repeat it in our article. - such a position of including the insult results in major BLP issues all over, from my experiance, we as a standard do not repeat the claimed demeaning insult/libel in BLP articles. - such a demand would result in additions of such valuable encyclopedic detail as - Harry said johnny was a Pakistani hating bastard Nigerian loving son of Satan, harry denied it and said he would sue for libel....the kind of attack content/disputed insulting name calling allegations that is regularly complained about by the subjects of our articles. If after the trial its revealed that someone was looking for money for sex we should/will happily report it - such allegations from a low quality sensationalist publication that the subject has since taken legal action against do not require detailing in our article, it is plenty to simply say, that the subject was upset about allegations published in the soandso news which they claim were false and they have initiated legal action against the soanso news. There is nothing BLP fanatic about my position at all. - BLP compliant, BLP cautious, BLP respectful, definitely. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * NickCT, you're absolutely right. I have compromised to keep notable and verifiable information out of the article.  However, it may still be possible to find a better compromise that includes the accusations with additional "context".    If everyone other than rob agrees to it, we can apparently have an admin declare consensus, and rob would have no choice but to follow the decision.
 * Off2riorob, the idea behind WP:BLP is removing information which is not notable or not verifiable. An editor reaches a point of "fanaticism" when they begin censoring notable, verifiable, facts.
 * As for potentially slanderous allegations our job is to record the facts when they're notable and well-referenced. Period.   Generally we don't include potentially slanderous accusations, not because they inherently violate WP:BLP, but because they're not notable enough.  Hugo Chavez stood in front of the United Nations and called the President of the United States "the devil".  This has been covered in wikipedia.   Will you also try to wipe away that important moment in history?
 * If not, perhaps you need to start afresh and re-think your standards for censorship. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "the idea behind WP:BLP is removing information which is not notable or not verifiable. An editor reaches a point of "fanaticism" when they begin censoring notable, verifiable, facts." - This is exactly the point. WP:V & WP:N trump WP:BLP concerns.  Not the other way around.
 * At the same time though, I'd agree we should be cautious here, b/c we certainly don't want to give the implication that the allegation is true. We should treat it neutrally and objectively.  I'd suggest language like - "Person X sued newspaper Y for libel over allegations that person X had solicited money for sex.  Newspaper Y was the only notable source printing the allegation."  Clear, to-the-point, and gives context to the allegation.
 * As a side note here, I'd like to point out that as someone who knows a couple sex workers (not I might hasten to add in a professional capacity) I'm a little disturbed by Off2's repeated characterization of receiving money for sex as an "insulting claim" or a "demeaning insult". We are talking about the world's oldest profession after all. NickCT (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I could have worded things better. "Fanaticism" is not when notable, verifiable facts are deleted.  Notability isn't black or white.    BLP "Fanaticism" comes in when an editor ignores this balance and declares that he is going to delete (or include) every instance of something based on his own, personal, unwavering rules.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With off2riorob at top here (and also with ErrantX, essentially bored speechless with it if I understand him right). So how do you rate yourself on a score of 0-10 here Bob? I mean originally we had a neutral comment saying the maid had filed a lawsuit without specifying the nature of the charges and giving a reference. Anyone who didn't know about it could quickly use the reference to go outside Wikipedia and follow the story. But oh no, that didn't satisfy you. You wanted readers to know in advance exactly what NYPs story actually was about because otherwise it's {*air quotes*} "CENSORING". Result, after wasting a lot of quite a few people's time who try to keep Wikipedia workable against sometimes seemingly insurmountable odds, what you have achieved is that the reader finds out nothing' about any lawsuit. So where's that 0-10, Bob? Me, I call it a null big time. FightingMac (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * FightingMac, all l I heard was whimper, whimper, whine.


 * The passage violated NPOV, because it was deliberately left there in a censored state so as to make the housekeeper look like more of a victim.  Certain editors had zero interest in the merits of the case, or the facts of the case, only that it stay in the article so as to show how the accuser had been "attacked" in the media.  That's blatantly POV.


 * As for you joining Errant, he has not shared Off2riorob's fanaticism. He suggested that we balance out the  basic facts of the case, with appropriate "context".  I think that is a very reasonable compromise.  So, where do you truly stand on this?


 * Now, if you wish to be productive, you need to change your tone and maybe we can reach a better compromise. Otherwise, it's time to drop this.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik
My reply to your comment. --87.79.210.245 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Lumbersexual for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lumbersexual is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lumbersexual until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Graham 87 04:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

IR
This edit violates the 1 Revert rule governing ARBPIA articles. Please revert, and address your concerns on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User: Nishidani How were my edits a violation of IR? I made a change.  You complained about the removal of your source, and you reverted my change.  So I left the source in tact and made a different change.

March 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. I am referring to your repeated promotion of the theory that all Jews should be called "Middle Eastern" which is not backed by any reliable sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. The idea that Jews are descended from the Middle East is not my theory.  I welcome you to look at the wikipedia page about Jews and the associated sources:
 * "Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎ ISO 259-2 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]) or Jewish people are members of an ethnoreligious group[10] and a nation[11][12] originating from the Israelites[13][14][15] and Hebrews[16][17] of historical Israel and Judah."
 * And I am not pushing for ethnic Jews to be included on the page. I'm advocating that we free the page of any possible bias, and any question of ethnicity, by only including people born in the Middle East.  It would be wonderful if you got on board with that non-biased suggestion from the RFC.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Middle Eastern superheroes. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I have actively worked to compromise and create consensus on that page. Have you?   -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But anything with long standing consensus on both the Middle East page and the Ethnicities of the Middle East page is not a fringe theory.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your handling of your RfC at the List of Middle Eastern Superheroes was inappropriate
Not only was your opening statement not neutral, you should not, 3 days into an RfC, decide there is agreement and change the article to suit your preferred version. Unless everyone is in agreement, the person starting the RfC should not close it although you could have withdrawn it, but not to go forum shopping - FTN isn't for dispute resolution. It would also have been courteous although not required to close it properly with the appropriate templates to make it obvious it was closed. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. It was my first RFC.  I'll try to do far better with the next one.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. I mistakenly thought you'd started the FTN discussion and called it forumshopping. I've struck that out. Doug Weller  talk 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ephemerisle
Well, I was all ready to accept the draft and move it main space, but the title already exists as a redirect. I have requested the redirect to be deleted. Once that happens, the article can be accepted. S0091 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Awesome. And it looks like the redirect has been deleted now.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. S0091 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ephemerisle has been accepted
 Ephemerisle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Ephemerisle help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! S0091 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing
I don't know if that was your intent, but after you posted this on my talk page, I went to see what the issue was, and some may view this as WP:CANVASSING. So in the future, please refrain from this. You can ask for guidance in boards set up for that purpose, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Inf-in MD (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My intent certainly wasn't canvassing and I don't feel this was canvassing. In that comment I said that I gave a user a "one last chance" before escalating their behavior. On wikipedia, you almost always give a link to a conversation you're discussing. Nowhere did I ask you to get involved beyond giving me some advice or tip the scales in any way.
 * But I will be mindful to avoid canvassing in the future. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

1R breach at BDS article
Reverting "A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions."

Kindly self revert one or other of your edits. Thank you.

Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I'll fix that now.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruption at the BDS article
A word to the wise. The talk page conversations and some of the recent editing are a bit troubling, I think. You have also mentioned escalation, such threats might come back to haunt you, WP:BOOMERANG. My advice, step back a bit.Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that any time I've warned people that I might need to escalate things it's been preceded by a call to "work together" or "try to come to consensus", with escalation listed as a last resort. But I appreciate your feedback, and I'll actively work on putting out calls for working towards consensus that stand on their own.


 * Do you have a reference for a guideline for when it's appropriate to warn people of a possible need to escalate? Certainly it seems like common sense to make at least one warning that it might be necessary before actually doing so?  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You do what I just did and raise your concerns at the user's talk page. Asking people to work together/come to consensus is all well and good but not so good if you ignore what others are saying and press your own position regardless. Sometimes it's better to just wait a bit and see if other editors will come in, if the arguments on a talk page get heated, it tends to put people off who might otherwise contribute to a consensus. There isn't really any need to rush things, the article will still be there the next day.Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "raise your concerns at the user's talk page" <-- Thank you. I do appreciate the advice. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Diff How do you reconcile the diff with the edit summary "Previous version had all sorts of misplaced sentence fragments"? Selfstudier (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As of October 5, the text said CRITICS claim 1) BDS is anti-semitic, 2) has element of anti-semitism, 3) seeks to deligitimize, 4) resembles historic discrimination. The ADL was listed as one example:
 * According to critics, including the Anti-Defamation League, BDS is antisemitic,[13] has elements of anti-Semitism,[14] seeks to delegitimize Israel,[15] and/or resembles historical discrimination against Jews.
 * Before my change, it had been written to make it appear that only the ADL was speaking about these things:
 * ... according to the Anti-Defamation League, it has elements of anti-Semitism[15] and seeks to delegitimize Israel,[16] or resembles historical discrimination against Jews.
 * I assume good faith, but someone editing the text totally changed the meaning. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of David Collier (political activist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Collier (political activist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/David Collier (political activist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration case declined as premature
In response to your request for arbitration titled "One sided fight with Huldra", the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact myself or a member of the community if you have more questions. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I respect that decision. However in this case, it is not an issue regarding content.  So DSN is out.  A user has chosen to fight me, which IMO borders on harassment, or at minimum violates all sorts of principles about cooperation and good faith.  They've said they won't stop fighting me until I concede to their demand of deleting a page.
 * As this is not related to dispute over content, can you share the most appropriate place to re-post this complaint to get some help? One user suggested the Arbitration Enforcement instead of the Arbitration Request, but if that's the right place I'm not sure what precedent to look up. I appreciate any help. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For editor conduct issues, WP:ANI is probably the right place to start. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In retrospect, that is clearly a much more appropriate place. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

1rr
at David Collier's fan page.  nableezy  - 18:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How and why do you feel there was a violation? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This restored Following the deadly crowd crush in Meron in 2021 in which 45 participants were trampled to death, Collier reported on Al Jazeera's coverage of the event, and the reader commentary attached to it. Collier found that out of 30,000 comments, more than 10,000 were “either laughing at or loving the fact innocent Jews have died.”, removed in this edit, and this restored that Corbyn was suspended from the party and the Jewish Journal source removed in this edit. A revert is not simply pressing undo, any edit that reverses in whole or in part a prior edit is a revert. Kindly self-revert your last revert or you may be reported and potentially blocked or topic banned.  nableezy  - 19:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is one of those times you should trust I know the rules here.  nableezy  - 19:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Made a bunch of additions and didn't recall I made a partial revert 23 hours ago.  Self-revert done. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  nableezy  - 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Flotilla injured israeli soldier.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Flotilla injured israeli soldier.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I uploaded that image 10 years ago. I think things were more relaxed back then.  No objections at all if admins decide that it doesn't meet the rules and delete it.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move
I have requested administrative reversion of your undiscussed page move against consensus. Doing this is disruptive, I suggest you not repeat it. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Following reversion of your undiscussed page move against consensus, your response is to file a request alleging that I made an undiscussed page move? Ridiculous. It seems you are only concerned to have the page with title anything but what it is. More disruption.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the page to request undos for page moves. Had I been aware of it, I simply would have started there. Thank you for, indirectly, informing me of the correct process.   -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a result of your continuing disruption, there are now 2 open move requests (one to move to "bigotry" and another to sentiment"). And then in addition you started an RFC as well which I see you have now closed. Be so good as to remedy this situation forthwith and close one or other of the move requests. Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever considered an IBAN?
If a user harasses you, that would solve the issue and it seems from past edits that you might be a victim of hounding and, therefore, you could use that to make a case for an interaction ban with the perpretrator.

On an aside, taking a break from editing on Wikipedia might help you tremendously too. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flotilla injured israeli soldier.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Flotilla injured israeli soldier.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS
Bob, have you read WP:ONUS? Do you see where it says ''While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.''? Do you believe your insertion has consensus? Do you agree that there have been good faith policy based reasons for why the material should be removed? Those things being the case, the blanket re-insertion is a violation of WP:ONUS, and repeatedly reverting, no matter if it is once an hour, once a day, or once a week is edit-warring.  nableezy  - 00:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
Hi Bob drobbs, appreciate this is not the outcome you would have preferred but your ongoing battleground and WP:TE approach to this area is disruptive to a collaborative editing environment. There was consensus at AE for a topic ban but less consensus on its length, so in the spirit of good faith I've applied a time-limited ban as the milder option. This time-limited ban is intended to prevent further battleground conduct, but is not a "punishment." If you edit elsewhere in a constructive manner then you'll be more than welcome back to ARBPIA when the topic ban expires.

I mentioned at AE a warning about weaponising disputes but on balance did not include this in the remedy. However as a mild suggestion only, please consider how dispute resolution might be more reasonably used in future as large parts of the filings could have been avoided with more discussion between editors. Per the template above, happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. I am going to ponder for a while before deciding if I'm going to file an appeal.  I do have one question for you. Rosgull seemed to suggest that the main problem leading to this 6-month ban was not any edits I made, but filing the request at AE.  Is that also your view?
 * If not, can you please share more specifics on _exactly_ what I did wrong? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob drobbs and thanks for the message. The issue as I see it is not the content of your edits but your approach. You clearly have a detailed knowledge of Israel/Palestine content, but have a tendency to approach disagreements with others as a contest you need to win, rather than an opportunity for collaboration and consensus. This is recently evident in your responses to others over the David Collier article, and in the repeated filing of disputes over very minor issues that could have been addressed more collaboratively. As a standard disclaimer I've never heard of David Collier and have no idea if he is notable or not. I've also never to my knowledge edited anything in the ARBPIA space. But I have seen similar battleground approaches to editing from various people in various contentious article sets. Unfortunately that is evident in this article space too.
 * On the specific question of whether this particular AE filing was the reason for the topic ban: not all by itself but it is part of that battleground and WP:TE pattern. I also don't think was actually saying that this filing alone was topic-banworthy, but obviously they can speak for themselves. Hope this answers the question, and happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In reviewing my behavior, did you notice any battleground behavior by any other users from the other side? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mildly, your reference to "sides" highlights the problem. If you persistently see other editors as being on "your side" or "the other side," you are likely to continue to view editing as a contest which "your side" has to win. I doubt I really have to explain this, but collaboration with other editors to reach a consensus outcome in articles is more likely to succeed than just filing disputes. But on the original question: yes there's all sorts of battleground and tendentious editing in the ARBPIA space, as Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021 and the various Arbitration Cases show. Subpar conduct in this topic area is not attributable to any one group of editors or any one point of view on this topic. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your point regarding "sides". However, the term can have differing connotations.  Ravenswing was on the "other side" voting for "delete".  His decision was based on time, and effort, and he really reviewed all of the sources.  I sent him a thank you note: "Cheers to respectful disagreements."
 * My question wasn't if generally speaking other editors have acted combatively in the past. My question was in the process of reviewing my behavior, in the recent timeframe, did you notice any battleground behavior from any other editors? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * These are great questions and of course the answer is that there is battleground behavior from all sides in contentious topics. However, the fact that your reaction to receiving a topic ban is to talk about the other side is itself an indication of the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The question I asked Euryalus was if they saw battleground behavior from other editors in the same talk pages I'm being disciplined for. You're alluding to the fact that's true, without actually stating so, and I think is obvious that there was indeed battleground behavior from quite a few people.  You're not going to dispute that, are you?
 * So my question for you, is exactly what made my behavior so horrific such that you pushed for an indefinite ban for me, but not even a warning for anyone else? What was the difference in my behavior?  I truly don't understand.
 * According to Euryalus, I am guilty of the following:
 * 1) Tendency to approach disagreements with others as a contest you need to win, rather than an opportunity for collaboration and consensus.
 * 2) Repeated filing of disputes over very minor issues that could have been addressed more collaboratively.
 * Do you have anything to add to that list? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * #2 is why you were sanctioned and other editors who just did #1 were not. You asked for admin attention, you got admin attention. The others know better by now. Levivich 06:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm back after a vacation. I appreciate the admins sharing your insights into why I was banned.  If everyone has shared their full thoughts in here, then I think the ban is the result of nothing more  than a well intentioned misunderstanding, and as such the 6-month length of it feels inappropriate.   I believe I'm supposed to start with you.  I ask you to please read my informal appeal, and share your thoughts. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Bob drobbs/Informal Appeal
 * Hi, and thanks for the message. Hope the vacation was good. I've read the informal appeal, and don't support lifting the topic ban at this stage. This is because aspects of the appeal, and our post-appeal conversation about "sides", tend me to the view that lifting the ban would lead to a resumption of battleground editing. The lack of editing since the ban was applied is also not ideal: this topic ban still allowed you to edit more than 6 million articles, and perhaps show evidence of a collaborative approach in areas outside ARBPIA. Unfortunately you haven't done so - if you did it might speak in your favour for a future modification of the ban.


 * Unrelatedly, some mild comment about the appeal wording. Please take or leave these as you wish, they're just passing thoughts.
 * Point 1 of the intro is not quite right. I have no view on whether your editing was problematic or not, only that the content of your edits weren't the reason for this specific topic ban. That reason was battleground conduct and WP:TE.
 * Point 3 of the intro, and the "Seeking Advice" section, are a bit of a straw man. It's certainly true that disruptive editing in ARBPIA cannot be attributed just to any one editor or group of editors. However your topic ban relates to your conduct, not other people's. That's what your appeal needs to focus on. An appeal that argues for an unban because someone else allegedly did some unrelated bad thing is unlikely to succeed.
 * The conflict resolution section is not, in my view, a completely accurate representation. You filed several disputes that could more easily have been resolved in collaborative discussion. This field is rife with people filing "tactical" disputes as a way of wearying other editors, and that label can unfortunately be attached to some of yours. You are not a new editor, and should know by now the time and place(s) for dispute resolution and escalation.
 * The "Battling" section contains an important commitment to work toward consensus rather than conflict. In my opinion this is an essential element in any appeal.
 * I haven't reviewed the details of the examples, but evidence of previous collaborative editing is a good thing to include.
 * Sorry if any of the above seems negative, but unban appeals are never an especially cheerful event. Good luck with the appeal if you now choose to lodge it elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comments don't seem negative. They seem constructive. I've been editing on and off for a decade, but this is really my first times using the wikipedia processes for dispute resolution.  I think the only other time I did so, I filed a "mediation" which got rejected because the other person declined to participate.  I also asked Nableezy if he would voluntarily join me in a mediation and he declined. You hint at some better way to handle this and I'm eager to learn:
 * "You filed several disputes that could more easily have been resolved in collaborative discussion."
 * So, could you please specific? How exactly could have I more easily resolved issues regarding a lack of civility and battleground behavior more collaboratively? What are the steps that should have been taken, and when?  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * and my question above is sincere.  Take an example like Huldra.  She decided she was going to "fight" me because I created a page she didn't like. In the incident report, she said she felt she had a right to treat me with disrespect because _others_ had harassed her in the past.  She felt it was fine to lash out at me because of other's behavior....
 * Now, I could have been the one to explain in depth that this isn't how wikipedia works. We all have an obligation to treat each other with respect and to work collaboratively.  But I think I'm the last person Huldra was willing to listen to and hear those messages from.  This seems like an incredibly ineffective process.
 * If this is wikipedia's process, so be it, and I'll do that in the future. But if there's some other process which I'm missing to collaboratively solve issues regarding WP:CIVIL, I'd really like to hear it.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Bob, if youd like, I would be happy to give you my thoughts on what happened, why, and what the best way forward would be for you. But Im not sure those thoughts are welcome, so lmk if they are.  nableezy  - 15:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You acknowledged that your own behavior was less than perfect and you didn't hold yourself to the standards we should all seek to hold ourselves. I'm also imperfect. The only thoughts I want from you at this point, is how that I could have motivated you to agree to the changes toward more civility that you agreed to in the AE, without having to take any dramatic step like AE.   Would you mind sharing that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing I agreed to was I should have brought up your conduct issues on your user talk page instead. I dont think thats a civility issue either, just that the topic of a POINT violation was not totally relevant to an AFD. I dont think there was anything else I actually did wrong there, and I dont think you had any basis for an AE report at all.  nableezy  - 02:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment The way forward is pretty much clear if you want your tb shortened is to show that you productive editor that means creating DYKs or improving articles to GA or FA. --Shrike (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about your TBan travails. Frankly I have found that, when I volunteer here at all, that controversial areas don't cut it for me as much as they did in the past. Perhaps moving to less difficult areas might be of benefit. A good rule of thumb is that if one is isolated in a controversy, it is not worth going forward and it is worthwhile to ask for wider input.  Also, as you can see, "drama boards" are just that and are not the Wikipedia equivalent of Small Claims Court. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Organization of the Oppressed on Earth
Hello, Bob drobbs. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Organization of the Oppressed on Earth


Hello, Bob drobbs. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Organization of the Oppressed on Earth".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)