User talk:Closetside

Archives

1

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

I reverted your removal of well-sourced pertinent information on 2024 United States presidential election. NPOV does not mean "only positive information". NPOV means that that both negative and positive information are covered in line with their weight in reliable sources. You need to discuss such a removal on the article's talk page before you just go and remove it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

That was bold per BRD and I put in on the talk page for discussion. Closetside (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will reply further there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Violating 1RR, please self-revert

You have violated 1RR on this page multiple times.

Please self-revert. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Done! Now please engage with me on the talk page. Closetside (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

-bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Please self-revert

You're clearly going against the consensus of the merge and the various discussions on the talk page. Please self-revert and seek consensus for your changes. M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I will once you show me the evidence. That one discussion didn't cut it. Btw, do it on the article's talk page, not here. Closetside (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You should read the template in the section above, in particular, the part starting 'Within contentious topics...'. Your editing style, which you may see as bold, may be seen by others as aggressive. This does not usually end well in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Like it or not, collaboration and compromise is necessary and unavoidable. Also, if you have not done so, I encourage you to read the Universal Code of Conduct, in particular the part that explains that "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" is prohibited. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. So the status quo ante bellum should be kept until the dispute is resolved, right? Closetside (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Besor Stream, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Following me around? This smells like WP:HARRASMENT? For what it's worth, I will include that the Wadi Gaza divides the Gaza Strip but the rest is superfluous and I will revert to my version. Closetside (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the disruption (multiple undiscussed moves that are PIA related, obliteration of PIA related content, etc.) is getting out of hand, I'll start by pinging ScottishFinnishRadish. M.Bitton (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

That page was moved without consensus, as you can see from the history, and is totally inaccurate (there is no tributary meeting point on the Israel-Gaza border). This is clear WP:HOUNDING. Stop. Closetside (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Moved last year, and therefore, has consensus. Your page move (among plenty of others) doesn't. The content removal is also unacceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

What? So bold moves are okay! State one reason why the new name makes sense because this is WP:DONTLIKEIT. If not kindly cease and desist Closetside (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Start a move request and state all the reasons that you deem appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Why didn't the previous mover have to go through this process? Closetside (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Give a reason against and I will. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and filibustering. Closetside (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh fine, I will. Closetside (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't forget to restore the content that you deleted. M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD requires a reason when reverting. Why is the content that I deleted important? Closetside (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This is required per WP:REVEXP and I will not restore the content. Closetside (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is it not important? M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Check the section in the talk page. Closetside (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Please take this to AE, ANI, or another admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that AE is the way to go. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (List of military engagements during the Gaza war) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Closetside. Thank you. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"Retired"?

Could you explain what you mean by declaring yourself retired?[1] Do you no longer intend to see through or participate in your recently opened move request at Talk:Flour massacre#Requested move 11 March 2025? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Correct. Closetside (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Would you withdraw it then? Or allow me to close it? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

No my vote and proposal still stand. I just won’t respond to counterargments or participate further in the discussion. Closetside (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to this question I asked you? Or to explain your "strong oppose" vote? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:VOLUNTEER I didn't have to, but I did. This is the last time I will though, at least for now. Closetside (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Wu xing Chinese Philosophy

Hi just letting you know that there is a response on the talk page in reference to you third party comment, hope to talk soon . Foristslow (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I'm going to avoid engaging with M.Bitton or on that talk page anymore, apparently that editor is so dedicated to bludgeoning that I've been reported for using the *talk* page.

I'm not even sure that's a thing, but I guess I'll find out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_MilesVorkosigan

MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Technically they have a point (ARBPIA is broadly construed, and the stream is broadly related to the conflict.) However, literally make 8 more edits to gain ECP, say you were unaware of the broadly construed part, affirm your edits as an XC editor and you’re good. Closetside (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

However they are bludgeoning by insisting I need to keep my 3O request despite not giving a 2O and straight up refusing to acknowledge sources he doesn’t like. Clear disruptive editing. This guy did it in the past and got blocked for it so I doubt it will end well for them. Closetside (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please leave edit summaries especially when editing WP:3O so that other editors know why you're removing disputes and how many disputes remain listed. This is discussed on the page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Exposure!

The conspiracy has been discovered. Execute the Epsilon protocol. Tell @MilesVorkosigan. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope you put gas in the getaway vehicle! MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I've loaded up the gas. Get in the vehicle and let's head to our undisclosed hideout! Closetside (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

As part of The Secret Conspiracy, in case you aren't monitoring, an admin put a word count template on the statements on Arb Enforcement. You're... a *bit* over 500 words. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Closetside. Thank you for your work on Nahal Yatir. Another editor, Moriwen, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Neatly written, thanks for the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Moriwen}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Moriwen (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Moriwen! It's a pleasure to help improve Wikipedia! Closetside (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Closetside. Thank you for your work on Nahal Shechem. Another editor, Moriwen, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for the good work and the nice clear citations!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Moriwen}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Moriwen (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Series of content removals without any edit summary. Tendentious editing

You have made several edits to Wikipedia:CTOP and removed contents without any edit summary. Please explain your reasoning next time

Some of these edits are unconstructive - please use talk page to get consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_bombing_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1292832900

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Central_Kitchen_aid_convoy_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1292833063

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Hind_Rajab&diff=prev&oldid=1292833102

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flour_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1292802604

Cinaroot (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the user has made similar changes to many articles. You were also warned by other editors to use edit summaries. Cinaroot (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This is per the consensus in the Talk:Gaza genocide against stating that there is genocide in Wikivoice. Saying part of Gaza genocide states exactly that. Closetside (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

You are misconstruing that discussion. It's about the opening sentence of the Gaza genocide article. It doesn't apply to info-boxes in other articles that simply link to the main article. Cinaroot (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

True the closer said The question at hand is “Should the article, including the opening sentence of the lead section, state the Gaza Genocide in wikivoice as fact?”. After reviewing the arguments and cited policies there appears to be a rough consensus against this proposal.

However it is absurd that it shouldn’t be stated the main article as fact but it should in other articles. Closetside (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Like i said - its about lede section of Gaza genocide - you need to self revert the particular changes you made to several article. Its disruptive editing ( even if it was a mistake ). Cinaroot (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Considering this is a wide-ranging problem for many articles about the Gaza genocide, such a discussion would take place on that page. It is simply absurd that if it shouldn’t be presented as a fact on its main page, it should be presented as a fact elsewhere. Therefore, application of the result to other articles is appropriate. Closetside (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

You yourself have acknowledged what the closer said. Just because the community decided not to state Gaza genocide as a fact in the lead of the Gaza genocide article does not give you the right to remove links to the Gaza genocide article from multiple articles. For eg [2] this simply means World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack is a part of Gaza genocide article.

Do not make further edits to any other article. If you do, ill report you for tendentious disruptive editing Cinaroot (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

[3] this is a proper example. But i agree [4] it shouldn't say just genocide - it should refer to article's title - ie Gaza genocide Cinaroot (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I will conclude that WP:BRD requires a rationale for a revert. You haven't provided one nor have you responded to my argument that the Gaza genocide should be portrayed as a fact elsewhere but not in the main article as simply absurd. Closetside (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If you do provide one, I'd be happy to open a new topic on Gaza genocide and have a discussion along with others' input. Closetside (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you provided no edit summaries. Please refer to my above response for my reasoning. Cinaroot (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright let's discuss on the Gaza genocide talk page. Closetside (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Bluntly, User:Cinaroot, it's you engaging in tendentious editing here. You're trying to force something that has a rough consensus against into the wiki, justifying it on the "technicality" that "well the consensus was only for that page". That's not appropriate. If you disagree with that consensus, you are free to start a wider discussion on a different forum (such as the policy village pump). But until then, there is an undisputed consensus against calling it a genocide in wikivoice. You're free to dispute that consensus, or try to get a wider one. But that RfC was, as the closer said, open for over 3 weeks. You disagreeing with its outcome does not mean you can just go to other pages and disrespect that outcome on less watched pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m not disputing the consensus. What I’m saying is that it’s inappropriate to remove links to the Gaza genocide article from the infoboxes of related articles. This isn’t a technicality — those articles are part of the broader topic referred to as the Gaza genocide, which is the actual name of the article. It’s not claiming the term as fact; it’s simply using the title agreed upon by the community. There is consensus for that name as well.

I reverted their edits because they did not provide an edit summary — I did not revert all of their contributions. I started this discussion to resolve the issue. If they continue making that specific change after being informed of the dispute, it qualifies as tendentious editing. Accusing me of tendentious editing in this context feels disingenuous. Cinaroot (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

You accused Closetside of tendentious editing. That feels disingenuous. There was a wide consensus against calling it a genocide in wikivoice. That applies to other articles and infoboxes too, until a wider consensus is found (which I doubt will happen) that is against the current consensus. Going to lesser watched articles to try to force the genocide accusation in, whether in the prose or the infobox, is not appropriate. I'll note that this isn't the only POV pushing you've done in this topic area recently, as I pointed out just one example (there are more) on your talkpage. I suggest you heed my recommendations there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Closetside I apologize if I prematurely accused you of tendentious editing—I just meant that if you continue to make similar edits when it’s disputed, that is tendentious editing. I stand by everything else.

We will continue the discussion on the Gaza genocide talk page. Cinaroot (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

You're the one that made edits. They were disputed. You reverted them because they didn't have an edit summary. That is, by definition, an edit war - even if you haven't strictly violated 3RR. You are the one engaging in tendentious editing here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Stop it, okay? Don’t teach me what an edit war is. I reverted it because of unexplained content removal from Wikipedia:Contentious topics

If Closetside has a problem with that, they can speak for themselves. Cinaroot (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Closetside You are continuing to make contested edits here [5]

You were asked to stop making these edits while discussion is in progress here Talk:Gaza genocide#Part of Gaza Genocide

Please do not edit war.

Cinaroot (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't say what use of the admin tools you are seeking. If you wish to report users for edit warring, that is done at WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

I’m getting the impression that editor is being deliberately provoking to try to derail any consensus over the move. Suggest you take your time replying. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)