User talk:Qualitatis

Archives

Archive 1

BDS edits

Just writing to say thank you for your recent structural edits on the BDS page. It needed a lot of work and it's in much better shape now! TrickyH (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We invite you to join WikiProject Palestine. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Palestine-related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the members page or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the WikiProject Palestine.Happy editing, TrickyH (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/boycotting-the-israeli-academy-by-lisa-taraki/, a copyright web page. — Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Your addition to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your apology for this nonsense. Citation of a few non-substantial phrases cannot possibly be copyright violation, especially not when attributed by a ref right after the citation.

Moreover, the editor with a mission was clearly editing in bad faith. While referring to a source in the section right above on this page, they removed a whole paragraph in the article, including a range of other references. You may also read the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations.

I expect you to restore the deleted text. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the changes you've been making to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article, but on this point you're wrong. Please read Wikipedia's copyright violation policy very carefully.

I'll cite just a few examples. The source says "in April 2002, at the height of the Israeli assault upon Palestinian cities and towns". You used the exact same phrase, without quotation marks. The source says "was followed by other initiatives in Europe, Australia, and the US". Again, you used the exact same phrase, without quotation marks. That's not the "[c]itation of a few non-substantial phrases"; it's the textbook definition of copyright violation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You choose not to adress my reply. OK, this is the second time after you were backing No More Mr Nice Guy, another user who was editing in bad faith. I don't know why you are engaging in anti-Palestinian editing. Trying to earn credits in the Zionist camp? Your edit summary "try it again, and you'll be blocked from editing" is insulting, as if I was trying something murky. All my edits are open and transparent, until they are made hidden by admins for some obscure reason, as was done after your revert. Apparently a privilege user Diannaa is abusing. I wonder where your pedantic and arrogant tone is coming from, "try it again, and you'll be blocked from editing". You are not authorized to block me, are you? --Qualitatis (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qualitatis. I am Diannaa, the administrator who revision deleted your edits. The reason I did this is because you added copyright material to this wiki, in violation of our copyright policy and copyright law. The policy page is WP:copyrights. Please make sure you read and understand this policy before you do any further editing. I suggest you also read the info page Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. All content you add to this wiki must be written in your own words. Any further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add, your rude and aggressive tone to Malik Shabazz in your above post is unacceptable. You need to tone it down, be polite, and not speculate as to other people's motivations. Please focus your remarks strictly on content. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a Wikipedia policy, not a suggestion, an official policy. — Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that the re-use of a few simple words to describe simple uncontroversial facts is not COPYVIO at all, even without quotes. Copying a whole internet page is COPYVIO, not a few phrases. For copyright, there has to be some creative work, not merely collecting some trivial facts. In any case it was not blatant copyright violation, so you violated the WP policy. Apart of that, your intention was only to damage the Background section. If it was about COPYVIO, you could have simply added a few quotes. And when someone is uncivil, he may expect uncivil response. --Qualitatis (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Qualitatis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Diannaa did not only abuse the RevDel tool and engage in disruptive editing, but now also abused the block tool to shortcut a personal conflict. I shortly refer to the discussion above. Diannaa's absurd ideas about copyright violation are perfectly reflected in this revert after I seriously attempted to adress those absurd ideas. This block is not only wrong because it is based on a wrong interpretation of copyright violation and aimed to avoid the questioning of Diannaa's wrongdoings, but also disproportional. --Qualitatis (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Diannaa is correct in her interpretation of Wikipedia's copyright policy (which in some ways is actually stricter than copyright law). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please do not change your unblock request after it has been declined, as the form that was actually reviewed is needed for future reviewing admins to see (and nobody will respond to it after it's been declined anyway). Instead, if you wish to expand on your explanation, please make a new unblock request below. 10:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry, edit conflict. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, no problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Qualitatis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Diannaa did not only abuse the RevDel tool and engage in disruptive editing, but now also abused the block tool to shortcut a personal conflict. I shortly refer to the discussion above. Diannaa's absurd ideas about copyright violation are perfectly reflected in this revert after I seriously attempted to adress those absurd ideas. It may be clear that I do not have any intention to violate copyrights, as I think I have proved more than enough that I am creative enough to write own texts. Nevertheless, facts are facts and often facts are only expressed correctly in the exact words used on the websites that are cited. Moreover, it is incontestable that a link to the original text is equal to attribution.
This block is not only wrong because it is based on a wrong interpretation of copyright violation and aimed to avoid the questioning of Diannaa's wrongdoings, but also disproportional. Qualitatis (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Diannaa is correct in her interpretation of Wikipedia's copyright policy (which in some ways is actually stricter than copyright law). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Just a suggestion, but

Qualitatis,; history teaches us that the unblock requests that are most commonly upheld are those that address the reasons for the block, and provide both demonstration of understanding of wrongoing and reassurances that history will not repeat itself. Less likely to succeed, I suggest, are unblock requests that accuse administrators of incompetence and abuse, and insist on the righteousness of one's original actions and that the fault lies with others. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you did not understand. This is not about wrongdoing and not about copyrights (which admin clones say are different on Wikipedia than in the real world, funny). Blocks are the standard way to get rid of the last editors who give the Palestinians a voice. No matter for what reason, eventually, they will find a way. That is why they immediately impose overnight an indefinite block on someone with a completely empty blocklog. And no admin clone will take the risk to express a dissentient view. You may only wonder why this did not happen earlier. Only futile edits that fit in the Zionist narrative are tolerated. The "anti-semitic" BDS was the red line. It is a public secret that Wikipedia is the mouthpiece of Israel and that will never change. Follow the money. [1] There will be no more substantial editing of articles in favor of Palestine, and I would advise no one to try it. The sunny side: it will save me a lot of time. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything you have written is wrong, apart from "The sunny side: it will save me a lot of time".

This is about copyright violation. If you violate copyright, which is easy to do, you will be blocked. To be unblocked to need to confirm that you understand the issue (and that statement must be true) and that you will do your best to not violate copyright, perhaps asking for advice from the experts when unsure.
The statement "Blocks are the standard way to get rid of the last editors who give the Palestinians a voice" is just not the case in my experience and I have been around in ARBPIA for years. The reality is more that consistently biased editing sometimes results in editors being blocked. But mostly it doesn't, even though it should because it is explicitly against policy. There's no point in spending a lot of time compiling evidence of bias when there is no protection against sockpuppetry and admins probably won't look at the evidence. People are mostly blocked for technical violations like 1RR. It's cheaper timewise.
Edits that "fit in the Zionist narrative are tolerated" to the extent that articles need to reflect all of the narratives based on RS and policy. There are probably no articles where this is done even close to successfully, but that is just how it is.
Yes, some people think it is a good idea to exploit the victims of anti-Semitism, even Nazism, to attack BDS. This desperation and lack of moral integrity is probably an indication of the success of the BDS movement, so perhaps to a BDS supporter it is a positive metric. Everytime an Israel supporter does something offensive or dumb in Wikipedia they are probably helping BDS to grow its support base a little bit. Pro-Israel activists are their own worst enemy in my opinion and probably one of the important recruiters for BDS.
Wikipedia is misused as a mouthpiece, but if you were editing "articles in favor of Palestine", how can you judge others? No one is allowed to POV push. You can correct balance issues but not edit "articles in favor of Palestine".
Maybe you should examine the reliability of your judgements with respect to editors. Take Malik for example. Did you know that he was the guy who exposed the infiltration of Wikipedia and manipulation of content by the NGO Monitor? Malik is an even handed editor. That is probably why he gets a lot of flak.
Maybe you aren't suited to editing in ARBPIA because it's a cesspool and you want to do something that is not allowed by Wikipedia, edit "articles in favor of" X. Many people think it is a waste of time and maybe they are right. I think collaboration via talk page discussion is an unnecessarily unpleasant and pointless waste of time in almost all cases, but you can still make articles better and fix problems without having to engage with the infantile ethno-nationalist/ultra-nationalist advocacy. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about copyright violation. Before and after the block, I have not seen any reference to a specific rule which I would have violated. And the history of the edits are scrupulously deleted on this "open and transparent encyclopedia", to be sure that no one can verify the edits. I have been unambiguously in that I take copyrights very seriously. Block someone based on fabricated violations, while making the edit very inaccurate is not only insincere but also abuse of tools.

And for "editing articles in favor" you may read "correcting balance" if you have followed my edits (and you did) and in fact, correction of infantile POV edits was not my first concern. I am sure you know very well that in this area neutral editors are virtually non-existent as far as they are familiar with the matter. And those who have the illusion that editors can possibly be neutral are not familiar with the matter. Check it at yourself. Neutrality is impossible by virtue of the subject. Those who assert the opposite are either hypocritical or have to think about it. Qualitatis (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you concede that in the diff, phrases A and B below could reasonably be considered by an honest rational agent to fit this description in WP:COPYVIO - "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

A - In October 2003, Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the occupied territories and in the diaspora issued a statement calling for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
B - ...issued...a statement made by Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the occupied territories and in the Diaspora calling for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions in October 2003. (from [2])

And would you concede that a person might reasonably consider that for the sets of people below, C = D, or thereabouts, because the people are either in the oPt or in the diaspora, and that it is a way to compress the information. Rather than "inaccurate", perhaps it could be described as less precise i.e. for set D the people could be within the green line.

C - Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the occupied territories and in the diaspora
D - Palestinian academics and intellectuals

I agree that neutrality is impossible, but it is possible, even trivial, to avoid editing articles where personal views could compromise content. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You correctly wrote that it is easy to violate copyright. Indeed, it is a thin line between citing and copying. I just found the article which applies to that Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing. It is a good practise here, to distinguish views and facts. In the example above, "a boycott" is an inappropiate replacement for "a boycott of Israeli academic institutions", because in the article they are two different things. And the difference between C an D is not obvious for everyone. "in the occupied territories and in the diaspora", which is a common phrase, is an important addition to describe the extent of the boycott and the term hurts no one.

The infantile who replaced a flag on this page was so kind to demonstrate the nature of pro-Israel editors. --Qualitatis (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note from the blocking admin to clear up a misunderstanding. The edit on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, the one that I paraphrased, was not the reason for the block; the block was issued for the copyright violations on Fatah and the repeated statements such as this one, which shows a clear misunderstanding of copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. These two edits are copyright violations, and they both took place after my final warning of 14:03, 11 April 2016:

@Diannaa: In the summary of your given edit on BDS, I clearly read a reference to copyright. If you think your mission is to correct others edits, you have the duty to explain why you think they are violating rules and not just threat with blocks and avoid discussion. If you think this is important, the last thing to do is obscure the matter by deleting the history and hide the texts which are assumed copyright violation. A typical example is the above Fatah history.

My edit count is over 2400, many of them large edits equal to 10 or 20 average edits. I had never any problem with copyrights (which does not imply that I did not make mistakes). The problems started with your disrupting edit, deleting a core paragraph, deleting 4 references, corrupting a 5th reference, followed by the deletion of 5 history entries. I have just the impression that you don't like BDS and think that every criticism of Israel is equal to anti-semitism. Qualitatis (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You received three warnings before being blocked, one from myself and two from Malik Shabazz (one in an edit summary and one on this page). One was this clear warning to stop and read our policies or you would be blocked. This post shows you absolutely do not understand copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. This is the reason for your block. — Diannaa (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Thomas.W ^talk 11:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Qualitatis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

You have been invited to take part because you are one of the top-ten contributors (according to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo) to five of the articles in my corpus (top-importance articles related to Israel or Palestine) - PLO, Jewish Agency for Israel, Mandate for Palestine, Peel Commission, and Yasser Arafat. If you believe you have been invited to fill out this survey in error, my apologies and feel free to ignore this.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 19:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]