Hi there,

Clarification sought on the removal of the RFC and corresponding sectionh [1]

"Consensus is that the words "The Catastrophe" and "al-Nakba" should not be boldfaced because they are not alternate appellations for the subject of the article, but refer to a separate (albeit related) topic, the 1948 Palestinian exodus"

1. Twelve (of some 30) secondary sources were provided [2] to show additional names/alternate appellations. They were not discussed or addressed in any manner whatsoever

2. 'refer to' but are not 'the name of' a separate (albeit related) topic, which is 1948 Palestinian exodus

3. "known to ... as" is already synonymous with "... refer to as"

4. Although I asked several times, no one could point to a ruling in WP:MOS whereby a proper noun/name should not be afforded boldface because it refers to, but is not the name of, a separate article

Consensus was not reached in a manner that conformed to any actual WP guideline, nor were the provided secondary sources addressed ... talknic (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that these arguments did not sway consensus in your favor. On Wikipedia, we have to abide by a consensus outcome even if we do not agree with it.  Sandstein  07:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the basis on which consensus is reached is critical

"Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles"

"editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense."

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. " ... talknic (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOu gave a notice to a disruptive IP [3] regarding specific article, however it is renewed his "cleaning" operations [4] again, which in my opinion constitutes definition of vandalism. Wouldn't you are? M.K. (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's nationalist POV-pushing, which is not the same thing as vandalism. That's an AE matter and can be addressed at WP:AE; I've stopped being active in that though.  Sandstein  12:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the IP's edits, which are all related to nationalist POV-pushing, I've blocked it for 6 months.  Sandstein  12:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandstein, Can you look into point 7 here as an uinvolved party [5]Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Ed and I have no interest in that, sorry.  Sandstein  13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I thought you might (if you feel) give feedback on the ineffectivenes of the current mechanism. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I (gently) resent it being labelled as an unreliable external link. I agree it is not a WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant, because it is self-published. Sorry for any offense. Nonetheless WP:BLP is clear: "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Self-published sources should not be included in the 'External links' sections".  Sandstein  13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]