User talk:Mulkhan

Welcome!

Hello, Mulkhan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have also used an IP address to edit-war as well, let alone the fact that you are likely the sock of E4024. Please be advised about socking and edit-warring and please refrain from doing so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Aziz Sancar. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 ~~~~}}.

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 20 November 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I opened a WP:BLPN discussion in 13th November 2015 to resolve disputes with other editors ; Երևանցի and Étienne Dolet ; awaiting Reliable Sources for "ethnicity debate" section to justify their inclusion in Aziz Sancar. Removed the section per WP:BLPSOURCES and justified claims by: "Since it's an original research not sourced as a "controversy" by any reliable (or ANY) source; (which is admitted by the editor Étienne Dolet in the talk page : (Indeed, finding a source that calls it a controversy is important) I'll be removing it on the grounds of "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.", in addition to violation of the WP:NOR and should be immediate per : WP:BLPREMOVE and suggest complete removal of the debate in the talk page and protection of the section by an admin in case any vandalism may occur. " Mulkhan (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)." Third opinion provided kindly by SageRad to omit the section in the talk page in 14th November 2015 and it was not accepted by either users involved; arguing "consensus" and "majority" whereas they're again invited to provide reliable sources on the WP:BLPN page before adding the disputed material since "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page" per WP:BLPN Mulkhan (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block expired more than days and several hours ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2015 (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.

Errm, I think "more than days and several hours ago" was supposed to say "more than two days and several hours ago". Don't know what happened to the "two". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that an "ethnicity debate" section is dumb, you did plainly edit-war against the consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the content at first per WP:CCC and raised the issue to WP:BLPN . There was no consensus after I challenged the material, the edits were part of the discussion; but many users reverted the content without talking in the talk page. So it may appear my edits may look like an edit war. Mulkhan (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was necessarily edit warring. When i looked at the dispute the other day, I did find the content in question which Mulkhan was trying to remove, to be unsourced negative synthesis about Aziz Sancar. I observed and commented as a formerly uninvolved third party. It looked content pushing by the other editors and I feel that Mulkhan did the right thing by removing the content in a BLP until further discussion. I commend Mulkhan in this case and I think it's sad to accuse the editor of edit warring here. I haven't looked at the topic in several days but as I had last seen it, this is my reckoning. SageRad (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To let Mulkhan revert more than ten times in this article is just plain disruptive. Overriding the consensus and deliberately ignoring basic Wikipedia guidelines is only going to ask for more disruption and edit-wars on his part. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at recent edits when I'm at a computer but in the meantime from what I saw a couple days ago, I think it's worse to edit war the material in question INTO the article unless you've since found a reliable source that states the controversy explicitly. What I saw was you pushing a synthesis into the article which is A BLP. I think the actions of litigating against this editor should not have been taken and ate intended to intimidate. I'll look in more depth when I'm at a computer. SageRad (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a new editor who is editing in a contentious topic. Therefore to avoid trouble I think s/he needs a good advocate and to understand the guidelines and to have them used appropriately and not in a lawyering way. SageRad (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now i am at a computer and reading the talk page and the case at the BLP noticeboard and i do not see the source that would call this a controversy and explain it in the way that you want to include content to do so, i.e. to paint Sancar in a negative light for using the word "gavur" or "gaiur" or whatever it is. I think we would need suitable sources to make this claim reliable enough to include. Perhaps i missed something in those discussion, but i don't see the justification for including the quote and i do not see consensus to include the content, and therefore, especially in a BLP, the content should not be included. I also see EtienneDolet citing WP:DEADHORSE using the full phrase "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass" which i really dislike in this context, as it's basically telling someone to "shut up and go away" instead of engaging the dialogue. I didn't see it being a dead horse and so that feels really rude to me. So now Mulkhan is blocked and you're having your way with a biography of a living person and inserting unsourced synthesis that defames him. Not a good situation. SageRad (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I guess; tt was a temporary block probably due to an earlier "edit war" notification placed here. Thanks for the input and support, and the quote is removed after inserted by another editor by Admin ; Mulkhan (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SageRad, the debate really isn't about placing it under the context of a controversy. Indeed, I started a controversy section, but I was more than willing to change the wording for the sake of reaching consensus. So the current version is in relation to the media frenzy surrounding his ethnicity. I've explained this many times already at the TP and the BLPN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see:

In the immediate aftermath of winning the Nobel Prize, his ethnicity was questioned in social media.[18][19][20][21] When questioned as to whether he is "Arab or half Turkish" by the BBC, Aziz Sancar responded by saying he was "disturbed by such remarks".[19][21] He stated the following explanation: "I do not speak Arabic nor Kurdish. I am Turkish. That’s it."[18] Sancar also stated that "these types of gâvurs are to be blamed for stirring problems in the Middle East."[22][23]

What provides due weight to include that last sentence, which seems to me innuendo of negativity? SageRad (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTABLENEWS. That quote alone has received over 600+ search results. I've already talked about this at the BLPN. There really isn't a question about WP:DUE here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There most certainly is a question of due weight here. I asked for a source saying that is a controversy, and one in English preferably. SageRad (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]