Hello, Kiwicherryblossom and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutrality^talk 05:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In discussions on Wikipedia, it is customary to intent replies by leading the reply with one or more ":" marks. More detail on the markup can be found at WP:THREAD and WP:INDENT. Thanks, and as Red Director says above: welcome! VQuakr (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the indent advice, and for the welcome. Much appreciated.

On a related note, please do not break up another editor's reply above their signature as you did here. It makes it difficult for others reading through to tell who wrote what. The specific advice against breaking up posts like this is noted at WP:TPO. Usually brevity and matching order is enough to make clear what you are addressing, but if it is necessary to add a short quote to make it clear what you are addressing, one way to do that is to restate the section in italics, like this:

I like carrots. I like toast. I like jam.

I like toast. I don't; it is too crunchy.

As noted at WP:TPO, the templates {{Talk quotation}} or {{Talkquote}} can also be used for this purpose. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VQuakr Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Douma chemical attack. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
This edit had already been contested. Use of the talk page is particularly critical in contentious areas. VQuakr (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm becoming a little unclear what a revert is and precisely what the rules are. I was careful not to remove any text (other than to alter punctuation), so I thought I had added to rather than reverted. A relevant talk section on Douma appears to have been closed and I have found myself on the wrong end of reverts, which have not been preceded by any discussion. It can be frustrating when it becomes difficult to correct false, biased or unsubstantiated claims, but I do try to be bold and truthful without being disruptive, Having said that, some of your corrections and comments have been very helpful, so they are appreciated.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is an edit that undoes, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor. Adding instances of "alleged" to that specific article had already been performed and contested three times in the last few days, so the addition was clearly contentious. I do not see a section on the talk page with clear consensus for that change, nor has any discussion at all been recently closed there. The "rules", as such, are linked in the warning template above. As noted in the "Important notice regarding pages related to the Syrian Civil War" section above, contentious areas (including pages related to the Syrian Civil War) are held to a particularly high standard. VQuakr (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we ignore replacing an upper case with a lower case letter or the odd comma, I’m not sure how I undid the actions of another editor in whole or in part, other than to reverse what I considered to be unwarranted reverts of my own edits. My original edits added to edits that already existed, but did not reverse them. On the other hand, you have been reverting my edits wholesale, so why am I rather than you considered to be involved in an edit war? This seems a little unfair.

If the matter is contentious then two points of view are contending. Therefore removing the word ‘alleged’ is also contentious, and surely anyone who does so is involved in an edit war?

It is usually presumed that the word ‘alleged’ should be used before a criminal case has been decided, so why is a consensus not required to overturn that presumption?

In my opinion, asserting that a chemical attack has taken place, when the publicly available evidence is at best ambiguous, is seriously damaging to Wikipedia’s reputation. If the OPCW decides a chemical attack has taken place, whether or not we agree with the verdict, it carries the necessary authority to justify the removal of the word ‘alleged’, but until then it should remain.

What do you think should happen if the OPCW were to judge that there is insufficient evidence to reach a decision or to conclude that no chemical attack had taken place?

The discussion on Hassan Diab, which directly relates to the question of whether or not the chemical attack happened, has been closed. Given that Diab and 16 other (mostly medical) eye-witnesses gave evidence that there was no chemical attack, it seems perverse for Wikipedia to assume that it did, before the OPCW has concluded its investigation. Of course we have to consider the possibility of duress, but why should witnesses giving evidence alongside Russian diplomats at the OPCW building in the Hague be any more likely to be under duress than witnesses under the control of al-Qaeda-linked Jaish al-Islam in Syria?

You say contentious areas are held to a “particularly high standard," but I struggle to see how treating a highly contentious opinion as a fact does so.

Incidentally why did you revert my original purely factual edit concerning Qmenas?Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff of the Qmenas revert to which you refer? As near as I can tell it is still live in the article, as neither myself nor anyone else has reverted it. VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 May I added “In October 2016 a follow up UN report blamed the Syrian government for a chlorine attack on Qmenas, also on 16th March 2015. ^[1][2]” to line 46 of My very best wishes edit of 7 May

Diff page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack&diff=prev&oldid=842532601

On 25 May, my edit was reverted to revision 839986109 - diff page at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack&diff=next&oldid=842759774

(line 55 to 46)

I have since introduced a differently worded edit, which I hope will stay (“In August and October 2016, United Nations reports explicitly blamed the Syrian military of Bashar al-Assad for dropping chlorine bombs on the towns of Talmenes on 21 April 2014, Sarmin on 16 March 2015.[33][34] and Qmenas, also on 16 March 2015. [35].“) but I am unclear why the original edit was removed, as it is a simple fact that the 4th OPCW/UN JIM report blamed the Syrian government for a chemical attack on Qmenas. I didn't see why it would be necessary to seek consensus for something so uncontentious. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That series of edits added ~50% to the length of the lede. The reason for the revert was in my edit summary, which you linked. VQuakr (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Qmenas chemical attack edit under discussion was not in the lede. It was in the third para of the background. What was your reason for reverting that specific edit? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kiwicherryblossom reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this report with a warning to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me after I made this post that you might not have noticed the additional restriction on this particular article: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." This is an even more stringent restriction than on the general sanctions that apply to all Syrian Civil War articles including the ones on the Khan Shaykhun and Douma attacks. My suggestion is that you need to use a lot more care in editing in this subject area - if in doubt, seek consensus prior to making a mainspace edit. VQuakr (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it which is why I try to take on board what has been said and put forward an alternative, rather than reinstate challenged edits. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you noticed it, then how do you explain [1], [2]? VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are quite some time apart and non-identical. Incidentally, do you have an explanation for your revert of the Qmenas edit? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are just over a week apart and whether they are identical is irrelevant. At this point, given your eagerness to right WP:GREATWRONGS and skirt editing restrictions, a topic ban seems only to be a matter of time. VQuakr (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean 'whether they are identical is irrelevant'? Surely that's the point? I'm trying to find a different approach. You deleted my edit about Qmenas, so I put the same information in a slightly different form, which Bob thanked me for. What's the difference? You still haven't properly explained your Qmenas edit and it might help if you did. As for my eagerness to right WP:GREATWRONGS, I “only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion”.

I would appreciate answers to the following questions: Why did you revert my Qmenas edit? Why did you accuse me of faking a quote? Which quote were you referring to? Do you still think I faked a quote? If not, will you apologise? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are, practically speaking, the same. Repeating the edit in a slightly different form is still a violation; take it to the talk page.

Edit summary was here. Because you faked a quote hoping it would bolster your argument. This one. VQuakr (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If repeating the edit in a slightly different form is still a violation, why did BobFromBrockley thank me for my repeating the Qmenas edit in a slightly different form and why have you allowed it to stand? This is a talk page, by the way.

I checked the quote and it was accurate. I did not fake a quote. I would like an apology please. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the source that you quoted? Maybe we are looking in different places. VQuakr (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used your link. You made a mistake. Why do you find it so hard to apologise?

Refusal noted. WP:DNFTT. VQuakr (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are noting your refusal to apologise? This is getting weird now. According to you, as I understand it, the source I quoted is "Myanmar (Burmese: [mjəmà]),[nb 1][8] officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and also known as Burma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar" which, I believe, is the one you linked to. Why you thought this was faked, I have no idea, but I would still appreciate an apology. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to provide a link to where you got the Myanmar quote with wikilinks to Myanmar and Burma. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not refuse to provide a link, as is obvious from the exchange and from the links I subsequently sent to your talk page, which you have chosen to archive rather than respond to. I have to admit it seemed puzzlingly circular to demand another link to the Myanmar Wikipedia page, so I wasn't really sure what you were driving at. As you will have seen, I have been persuaded over the Khan Shaykhun lede, and it is now clear to me why the analogy does not work, but I did not fake anything. I would still like an apology, but I'm not going to pursue it any further. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you posted "[[Myanmar]] (Burmese: [mjəmà]),[nb 1][8] officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and also known as [[Burma]]". I asked you to link the source of that specific string. Our article on the subject, with sources removed, starts with "'''Myanmar''' ({{IPA-my|mjəmà|lang}}),[nb 1][8] officially the '''Republic of the Union of Myanmar''' and also known as '''Burma'''", which looks similar but is crucially different in that "Burma" is not bluelinked - you added internal links to fake a quote that you believed would strengthen your position. When called out on it, you tried to evade and go with passive aggression rather than honesty. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. You don't like to admit mistakes, let alone apologise for unwarranted insults and you have an aversion to any editor that doesn't share your exact same views. When I try to give what you have asked for on your talk page, even after another insult in yet more jargon (WP: DNFTT - yes, I looked it up, very clever.), you archive it. You know I am something of a novice, so when you use jargon, you must realise I generally do have to look it up, which up to a point is fine because I learn from it, but your reliance on it, makes it impossible to have a sensible discussion. I'm not even sure I understand what you are accusing me of - what is a 'specific string'? Do you really think I would add internal links to fake a quote? It wouldn't occur to me to do that, I'm not sure I would know how and I don't see how they would bolster my argument or strengthen my position. If I put brackets around Myanmar or Burma or whatever, that would just be to take you to the article I was referring to. I explained the analogy and that's all there was to it. I am being honest, not passive aggressive. You are projecting.

I suggest you study BobFromBrockley's approach which is to take the time and trouble to be courteous, assume good faith and to use reason. Bob's response was to say "The Burma analogy doesn't work at all for me. First, because that's the actual Myanmar article you're quoting, so it is correct it goes into detail; if Myanmar is mentioned in other articles, does it always say "also known as Burma"? But also because Myanmar and Burma refer to the exact same thing, which is why Burma redirects to Myanmar whereas HTS, JFS and a-Q are not exactly the same thing, which is why they have their own articles." This is very clear and completely reasonable, so I accepted his argument. Actually the article on the Rohingya people does say 'also known as Burma', when it refers to Myanmar, but I responded positively to the argument as a whole, because it was well put and made sense.

"Don't bite, do what's right. Being a friend is all right." Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's more playing the victim and you can expect to be taken to task every time you attempt it. Adding internal links to an example of how we ostensibly use internal links seems to me something that one would not need experience to recognize as problematic. I do not feel any particular need to accept the "I'm still new" defense from you when you are simultaneously setting up straw men to knock down as you did here. Sloppy rhetoric like that has nothing to do with the forum you are using. You don't get respect for intellectual integrity unless you demonstrate intellectual integrity.

That said, the Myanmar thing wasn't a big enough deal to merit the keystrokes we've both expended on it; I won't bring it up again if you don't.

Regarding jargon, I meant "string" as in "an ordered sequence of text characters." That wasn't Wikipedia jargon, but I do see that it could have been clearer. In general, it is hard/inadvisable to avoid relevant links to key policies in discussions, because that is where many of the key central decisions that impact our discussions have been made over the years. I will make an effort to use bluelinks only when I think they lead to indispensable information and present the links in a format where the sentences are still readable rather than the WP:CAPITALIZEDLINK style we love so much here. With regard to article content, all those links ultimately roll up to three "core content policies," which are summarized on a single page here. You probably have already seen all three, but if you are unsure where to start with getting more familiar with what guides content at Wikipedia, those three are the best ones to focus on. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't really understand why you think I faked a quote or what difference adding internal links would make to the analogy, and I can only repeat that I did not fake a quote. Re the French intelligence report, I didn't set up any straw men that I'm aware of, and 'sloppy rhetoric' is harsh, but perhaps not in Wikipedia terms. I have taken your criticism on board on the other talk page.

I agree and I won't. I have already alluded to it above in reply, but that's it.

Understood and much appreciated. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I'd forgotten.Thanks for revert. Never thought I'd say that! Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Douma chemical attack; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

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.

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. VQuakr (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiwicherryblossom. I wanted to share with you a couple of pages to help you communicate better on talk pages. One is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The other is Wikipedia:Indentation which explains the important conventions for formatting your talk page comments so that others understand who you are are responding to. Help:Talk pages also provides some guidance.

I noticed that on Talk:Douma chemical attack, you always post without indents. That makes it very difficult for others to follow and participate in the discussion. You may have noticed other editors adding indents to your comments, but really, it's up to you to do this. If you find that editors sometimes don't respond to your comments, that may be one of the reasons why.

I can't help but notice that VQuakr also explained this to you here. Is there some reason why are you are still not formatting your comments like everyone else? If you have questions, I'm would be happy to answer them.- MrX 🖋 12:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrX. Thanks. I don't always post without indents as can be seen from earlier posts, but on this occasion I did prematurely improvise an outdent, for which I apologise. I shall always endeavour to indent properly in future. The Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines also emphasise that article talk pages "should be used to discuss ways to improve an article", so I do hope the lack of indentation on this occasion has not caused other editors to refrain from doing so, given the seriousness of the subject matter. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply here. It was a reply to you, not Bob. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. What are you trying to say? VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask you the same question. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made a claim: "Fisk's report was not an opinion piece." My reply debunked that claim. Your reply to that debunking, linked above, does not make sense to me. VQuakr (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was befuddled by your odd use of language. Maybe it's a dialect thing? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying it's well known that Voices, is an opinion section?" If so fair enough, I'll head back to the Talk page. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out the absurdity of your claim - that an opinion piece was not an opinion piece. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I have figured out what you were talking about, I have responded on the DCA Talk page, but it was a very odd use of language. I wondered if it was a Google Translate issue for a while. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, machine translation was not performed at this juncture. It made sense to me when I wrote it... VQuakr (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear it. Then it must be an unlucky selection from a dictionary, a literal translation of an idiom or a dialect thing. Anyway, we're back on track. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Douma chemical attack, you may be blocked from editing. This edit inserted your post between a talk section header you didn't write and the editor's signature. VQuakr (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you have been guilty of disruptive editing. I'm just interested in improving Wikipedia articles and discussing the relevant issues. I actually was discussing the issue on the Douma Chemical attack Talk page but you repeatedly relocated my comment to a place where it was plainly impossible to have the discussion. Perhaps you didn't realise you were on the Talk page or are you suggesting it is not possible to challenge a section header that contains an untrue statement? Who knows?

As you will by now be aware, I believe it is particularly important that expressions of doubt are used appropriately, as they are by all responsible media sources in countries where the rule of law holds good. In my view, the WP principle "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined" should be applied and it saddens me that you reject it, but there we are. Anyway, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr is correct. You cannot insert your comments into the middle of another editors post, and comments should stay in chronological order. You should already know this if you read the guides that I linked to in the #Indenting section above. Also, please use {{reflist-talk}} if you must include reference tags on a talk page.- MrX 🖋 14:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr removed the comment to a place where it would not make sense and where it was also not in chronological order. VQ also removed my reply to Dan the Plumber, which was in chronological order. It makes no difference to VQuakr. Help:Talk pages say, “If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it, I checked beforehand. That means comments don’t have to stay in chronological order. You should know this. I did not insert my comments into the middle of another editors post. I was commenting on the section header, not the comment below it. They are different. The first comment under the section header 'suspected' is mine. But the section header itself is not mine. Someone else posted it. How about you and VQ concentrate on the issues we are trying to discuss or at least recognise that the non-sensical section header need changing? Bogus procedural points and disruptive editing are being used to stifle discussion, and VQ accuses me of disruptive editing! If you wish to carry on with this stuff, be my guest, but please don't insult my intelligence. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section header is part of my post. You simply can't do what you did.- MrX 🖋 16:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has a section header been exclusively tied to the first comment? Even if you made both edits in the same post, they are clearly separate things. Show me the rule that says I can't criticise the wording of a section header immediately underneath it.

A previous disruptive edit by VQuakr illustrates my point. I made a post on the 6th of December, clearly intended to be a continuation of the previous discussion, but making it clear that the principle of using expressions of doubt related to the text as well as the title. Not for the last time, VQuakr interfered in such a way as to isolate my new post from what had gone before. He created an unhelpful new section header called 'suspected' and inserted it above my comment, thereby limiting the scope of the discussion and achieving the exact opposite of what I had intended. More unwanted and unnecessary fragmentation was caused by your header and there was no reason for me to suppose it was a part of the following comment, because it wasn't. VQuakr has shown that a section header and the comment that follows are entirely separate matters.

All of this is just a way to inhibit the discussion. Why don't you just change the title to 'Chlorine gas can be used as a chemical weapon' or something similar? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely reasonable to separate out the old thread from July from the newer thread started in December with a subheader. The discussion section is like 100kB long; there is an obvious need to separate for navigation purposes as well. Inserting navigation breaks in long talk page sections is quite common practice, and obviously not the same thing as inserting a comment under an existing section header and above the OP of the subsection. What would be a better subsection title than "suspected", which I chose because it seemed a neutral key word from your OP in the subsection? If the subsection title was so upsetting to you, why are you just bringing it up now? VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says, “If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it," so there is no obligation to keep to a strict chronological order. Can you point to a specific rule that says I cannot comment on a section header or that I cannot do so immediately under it?

I'm not just bringing it up now. Check the history. You might think it was reasonable, but it was my comment and the discussion at that stage was short and coherent. It just needed the original header changing to make it clear that the principle under discussion did not just relate to the title of the article. It was about whether or not we should use 'expressions of doubt' in the context of the alleged Douma chemical attack. You and MrX reversed my attempt to do this and insisted on 'suspected'. Dated headers would have been fine, ('July', 'December' maybe?), but not headers that made it seem as if we were dealing with a different subject when we were not.

An overall header would be something like: 'Should the article use expressions of doubt until the OPCW has reached its decision?'

You still haven't really answered that question satisfactorily, and that is all I am really asking. It appears to be in line with WP:WORDS to do so, most RS do so and the OPCW does so, so why do you think we should follow the lead of oppressive and totalitarian states in reversing the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

P.S. I noticed that you completely removed my reply to Dan the Plumber without giving a reason. Why did you do that? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you attempt another edit similar to this, I will pursue a topic ban to prevent you from further disrupting articles related to the Syrian Civil War. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have not replied to my previous post concerning your disruption of my attempts to discuss disputed matters on the talk page. Please could you do so?

As to your accusation of "poisoning the well". There is a very serious question about the reliability of the UNCHR commission as a source, yet the article (and the Douma, Syria section on the attack) has become increasingly reliant on it to the extent that it has usurped the authority of the OPCW FFM. The feeble argument used to justify this inappropriate use of a possibly unreliable source is that it is more recent, yet it is plain the information is not. It is simply a rehash of claims made by the US government back in April. Although it is not a bias Nikki Haley would worry about, it is yet another illustration of the "partizan posturing and regional divides' that disturbed Ban Ki-Moon.

Wikipedia relies on RS and of course there will be disagreements about what are and are not RS, but any criticism of a source could be construed as "poisoning the well". By alleging intimidation, the article undermines the evidence of medical staff in Douma who said there was no chemical attack. This is poisoning the well, but it suits your POV, so it stays. You do not similarly question the evidence of medical staff working under the control of al-Qaeda affiliated terror groups.

Of course we have different points of view about the events themselves based on our own more detailed research, but surely we can at least try to be detached in respect of Wikipedia? I do not agree with the conclusions of the 7th JIM re Khan Shaykhun, but I accept its authority as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I accept that, while recording dissenting views, we should categorise the incident as a chemical attack carried out by the Syrian regime. In respect of Douma, I don't see why we cannot wait until the OPCW-FFM has completed its work before removing expressions of doubt, as most media sources do most of the time, at least in liberal democracies. Maybe you don't live in one, in which case I appreciate that you have to be careful.

Like a number of editors who lack the seniority or group solidarity to make a difference on articles of this nature, I am afraid that Wikipedia is being used for propaganda purposes and and many others who do not edit feel the same. I think we should step back from turning Wikipedia into an ideological battleground.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AE[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kiwicherryblossom. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are hereby topic banned from all pages related to Syrian Civil War pending the outcome of the community sanction request at WP:AN. You may comment on that thread to defend yourself and explain your actions. I am inclined to issue a long topic ban but will give you a chance to reply in case you can make a convincing defense. Jehochman ^Talk 11:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm mistaken, you've violated this topic ban. The timing of these suggest it's not even a case where you were in the middle of editing while you received the topic ban [3] [4] [5] Unless there's something I've missed, I suggest you self revert or strike (if you can't self revert because someone replied to your comment) your comments as you violating your topic ban while discussion is ongoing is likely to significantly damage any chances you may have, but showing you've recognised your mistakes may be a minor help. Note technically editing those pages again would itself be a violation but IMO acceptable as the lesser of two evils if your sole purpose is to correct a topic ban violation. (But I can't speak for anyone else.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne

I hope to find you here. I shall also post on your page.

Thanks. Yes, this appears to be an error on my part. MrX made a similar point in reply, so I have not returned to the Talk page. It was not my intention to ignore the ban, and I would like to remove my comment, but as you say, removing it might be a further breach. I hope not. Thanks again. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it for you. The discussion is ongoing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All sanctions discussions are, underneath all the posturing, a negotiation. I have no design to ban you or block you in any way. What I really want is for you to show that you understand the spirit (not just the letter) of Wikipedia's rules and that you will be a good community member. Sometimes this means conceding an argument, even when you are 100% right and the other person is equally wrong. Looking at the diffs in that discussion, the word "allegedly" seems to be a hot button issue. Please read WP:WEASEL. As an initial step, will you agree to stop making edits that insert this word? There are exceptions when the word might be used, but you will need more experience to recognize them.

• I realize you've had an account since 2013, but you have only edited heavily in 2018. Those edits are focused on the Syrian Civil War, one of the most toxic and problematic areas of Wikipedia. I would feel reassured if you agreed to voluntarily avoid this area for several months and work on other articles. If you identify other areas you would like to edit, that would be helpful. The reason is that you need to gain experience working in the harmonious areas of Wikipedia to understand how things should work. You can then maybe carry over that spirit if you decide to occasionally return to the toxic areas. If you do return to the toxic areas, I'd like you to pledge to restrain this activity to be a minority of your contributions. This is what I do myself, and it is helpful to keeping a healthy perspective.

• What do you say? Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman and thanks. That is sound advice. I say yes, and shall avoid editing the Syrian civil war, as you suggest.

If I could just make a brief comment, though, about the use of 'allegedly' and other expressions of doubt or 'tentative language' as Darouet puts it, since VQuakr and MrX appear to have misunderstood the purpose of my edits.

I am aware of WP:WEASEL but I really don't think it applies in this case and, in my view, the main point six editors (including me) were making on the Douma Chemical Attack Talk page needs to be taken seriously.

According to MOS:ALLEGED “alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial”

The OPCW is investigating allegations of a chemical attack on Douma and until its investigation is complete, wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, so surely expressions of doubt such as “alleged” are appropriate?

I recognise that the majority of RS generally suggest that there probably was a chemical attack and that the Assad regime was likely responsible, so, of course, Wikipedia should give due weight to that view. However that does not mean asserting certainty before the OPCW has reached its decision, especially in the light of the fact that no sarin or other nerve agents were found.

The vast majority of reliable sources, including those upon which the article is based do not assert certainty and appropriately use expressions of doubt ("alleged", "suspected" etc) as does the OPCW. In essence this is because it is a case with potential legal implications.

Neither VQuakr nor MrX nor anyone else has satisfactorily explained why MOS:ALLEGED rule should not apply in this case.

Wikipedia is atypical in asserting certainty and I think it damages our reputation. This is why I was so insistent. I shall leave the matter alone, but if you can give this some thought and perhaps bring it up with other senior editors I would appreciate it.

In the meantime, I shall endeavour to be a good community member and to edit within the spirit of the rules.

Thanks again and all the best. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than an external restriction, you are left to manage yourself. Please edit wisely and avoid the venue of conflict for a good while to avoid falling back into disputes. Avoid conflict and seek help from experienced editors should there be any sign of trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks Jehochman Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reply here, I withdraw my insinuation of pedantry. I am not sure what point you are trying to make, though. It is self evident that any consensus-based decision on Wikipedia will involve a tiny fraction of the overall number of active editors. A typical discussion thread on RSN might involve five editors; a RfC at RSN probably more than that. 50+ editors discussing anything on WP outside of a few busy forums is unusual, and can reasonably be described as "well-attended". VQuakr (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: Thank you for the withdrawal. I take your point, but feel that this was an issue of such magnitude that all Wikipedians should have been notified that the discussion was taking place (I do not appear to have received notification). The discussion may have been well-attended by the standards of RSN threads, but not, in my view, relative to the significance of the decision or the number of people affected by it. Ultimately, though, I suppose, it is a relative term.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more of a "I want to change how decisions are made at Wikipedia" discussion. You could try WP:VP. RfCs are publicized; anyone who wants to peruse them can at WP:RFC/A. VQuakr (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: Thank you. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]