MaskedSinger

waaaaah waaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaah

😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 This is the only thing I see when I see your discussion posts, imagining quoting the bible as a reliable academic source, the Israeli education system really messed you up lmao. 213.65.147.223 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. MaskedSinger (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? Where did you quote it? Doug Weller talk 08:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: See Talk:Zionism#c-MaskedSinger-20240917165500-Emerged_in_Europe_in_the_late_19th_century?? for context. Polygnotus (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wow. No way is a religious text a reliable source for history. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy actually is that they "are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." MaskedSinger (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Which does not make them reliable sources for history. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

why not? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. Religious sources meet none of the requirements to be considered reliable. Polygnotus (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw that - that's what I quoted.

This is a complete nonsense and makes a mockery of Wikipedia- how is there a Moses article? All of the references are quoting the Torah. No one else was around then? So on this logic, the article shouldn't exist. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources have written about Moses. Some in that article are The New York Times and Encyclopædia Britannica. Polygnotus (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The article quotes the narrative, does not argue that it is correct and questions his existence. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So the New Times had a reporter on the scene in biblical times!?!? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did - quoted the narrative.... MaskedSinger (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The NYT refences are not used for claims about biblical times, are they? Polygnotus (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They are not gonna need to have a reporter on the scene in biblical times for a claim like: W. G. Hardy's novel All the Trumpets Sounded (1942) tells a fictionalized life of Moses. Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So he's a real person? If he's a real person who lived, what other proof is there for this besides the Bible?

Otherwise this is a fictional tale of a fictional person... MaskedSinger (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking me? I didn't have a reporter on the scene at the time. Note that the Bible isnt't the only book that mentions him. Polygnotus (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

i am asking you. which other book mentions him that doesn't do so via the Bible? MaskedSinger (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

How is that relevant? If you write a book about Gregory the Greyhound, who is a crimefighter in medieval Algeria, then every other book that mentions that Gregory the Greyhound mentions him "via" your book. Whether he is real or fictional has no bearing on that. It is possible that your book is not a reliable source, but that the character later gets discussed in another book which is. Polygnotus (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

But this isn't the case here. There are books who refer to Moses as a person who was real; as a person who did what the Bible says he did. So how can the biblical encyclopedia be a source fit for Wikipedia purposes? But the reference it's using, the actual Bible, isn't? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There are books which refer to Gregory the Greyhound as real (the ones you wrote, remember). But then a book review was published in the New York Times about your books and they mention Gregory the Greyhound. Since the NYT is a reliable source we can use it onwiki. But since you are not we cannot use your books as sources. The fact that the NYT mentions Gregory "via" your books is irrelevant. Polygnotus (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Well this is just a nonsense. The mental gymnastics to justify this are appalling. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 1

1 MaskedSinger (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 8

8 MaskedSinger (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 5

5 MaskedSinger (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 21

21 MaskedSinger (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 14:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And if this continues after you are unblocked, expect an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I follow MaskedSinger's talkpage since we had a few interactions. It's quite unclear to me what this block is about, and it really seems to have come out of nowhere. If this is regarding the discussion above about Zionism and the Bible, Doug Weller seems to be involved, and I think it's not fair for them to be blocking about a discussion they're involved in. I'm also not seeing the claimed lack of good faith or personal attacks being claimed. All in all, I think it would be useful to have a fuller explanation for the block. DW, you also wrote if this continues after you are unblocked, expect an indefinite block, but it's unclear to MaskedSinger (and also to me) what "this" is. Surely, it would be appropriate to explain, as blocks should be used as educational tools mostly when applied to editors who are here to contribute and build an encyclopedia. --SuperJew (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Doug will probably explain further when he's at leisure to. But as for your "involved" accusation, SuperJew, I think not. Please take a look at the policy WP:INVOLVED, which explains that "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved". I don't see Doug involving himself, either on this page or at Talk:Zionism, in any other way than with such warnings and advice as described. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC).

To my feeling, the words of Doug Wow. No way is a religious text a reliable source for history. reads as something that one has strong feelings about. I am aware of course that this is a bit of a subjective subject, but therefore think admins in general should err on the side of caution in such cases. --SuperJew (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is, for example, for cases where the admin has abused their extra buttons to "win" content disputes by blocking the other party. All admins have strong feeling against those who are NOTHERE (except Bishonen, who feeds them to Bishzilla as a tasty snack) like vandals and spammers, but that doesn't mean that they are not allowed to block vandals and spammers. Doug wasn't even aware of that discussion until I linked to it. Anyway, on a more relevant note, I think it is pretty clear why Doug did what he did. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it does give an indication. Polygnotus (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

1. I have no idea what this is regarding - i see now that the reasons given were "lack of good faith, personal attacks, persistent disruption". I don't agree with this. I was contributing on subjects that were contentious and the discussions were robust. I don't believe there was a lack of good faith, personal attacks or disruption. If there were, I apologize. 2. But I don't think I should be blocked, completely out of the blue, without any sort of warning?! 3. And why not just do a topic ban - why a total ban? Reading up some more, I believe this block is punitive given the threat that came with it. I am not a disruptive editor by nature but sometimes I find myself in these situations. If Doug would have told me to cool it, take a time out or step down for a week, I would have appreciated it. It would be good for my own sanity! But apropos of nothing and just to be blocked, I believe is excessive. And to be fair, to suddenly find these editors debating me on my own talk page, I felt intimidated and ganged up. I didn't ask for this discussion - it came to me.

MaskedSinger (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Could you say if unblocked what you would do? Would you continue to argue the bible can be used as a historical source? I think you need a break from that. A temporary topic ban instead of a block could be a possibility if you are interested. I'm not promising anything, but you could suggest that in your next unblock request, which in my humble opinion would have more chance of being accepted than your current request. PhilKnight (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

MS, my assumption is that this has to do with Talk:Zionism#Emerged_in_Europe_in_the_late_19th_century??, where there's a lot of wasted editor time trying to explain to you why the Bible can't be used as a source, which you seemed to have a hard time understanding even though multiple editors tried to help you understand. Volunteer time is literally our only resource, so we don't like seeing it wasted. And this is an extremely contentious article -- even with archiving after 30 days, there are a dozen discussions, and there are a couple dozen archives -- which means time-wasting is especially unwelcome there. Valereee (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I've read the discussion and it seems to me a legitimate course of discussion and as I said I don't see personal attacks taking place in it. Also, I understand that feeling your time is wasted is very annoying, but imo that's not really a reason for a block at such a level. I've seen so many discussions at WT:FOOTY where I usually edit that are complete time wasters explaining multiple times points of clear consensus to editors (sometimes the same ones), yet it doesn't end in blocks. --SuperJew (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't see the IDHT and CIR issues (e.g. their unique approach to OR), the battleground mentality and the assumptions of bad faith? Polygnotus (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus I would prefer it if you would stop commenting on my talk page. Thank you for understanding. MaskedSinger (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you MaskedSinger (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said it seems to me a legitimate discussion. If anything, any IDHT seems to be coming slightly from the other side, and I wouldn't go as far as blocking for it anyway. --SuperJew (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew, how is it legitimate to argue at length with multiple editors at a contentious topic that Wikipedia should be using the Bible as if it were a reliable historical source? And backing that argument up by pointing other editors at a Wikipedia article that has multiple tags for sourcing and quality because it's sourced mainly to religious texts? And going on to argue that their sources are their own understanding of world history and their own interpretation of artistic representations of historical events? And then suggesting an editor they assume to be muslim shouldn't be editing the article?

To me it looks either like pointiness/RGW -- possibly brought on by recent criticism of the article on social media or in Israel Hayom or The Jewish Press, as both published pieces the day MS arrived for the first time at the article -- or like a CIR issue. Valereee (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I read, most of what you wrote seem to me legitimate points to argue (not saying here if I agree with the points or not and I'm not entering the argument). The point And then suggesting an editor they assume to be muslim shouldn't be editing the article I didn't see and I'd appreciate if you could point out where that is exactly.

Regarding the timing, I actually saw myself the talk about the Zionism page (I think I saw it actually on Twiter before it hit media). But anyways the point of trigger that an editor became aware of the page or it's state shouldn't affect the discussion or response to editor. --SuperJew (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link to the comment.

When social media goes wild over something, or when partisan media publish outrage pieces, we tend to get lots of brand new editors at an article to RGW. Zionism had to be fully protected on the 16th. I'm guessing that's not happening very often at FOOTY. Honestly the comparison is a bit flabbergasting. When someone who has zero experience in a contentious topic comes in both red hot and with limited understanding of policy around sourcing, and won't give up, that affects the discussion and the response to that editor. Not the fact they got triggered. What they did because they got triggered. Valereee (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, that comment seems over the line, though I do understand the passion and feeling of MS. Anyways my original point and bottom line the most important thing missing here is that a block should be preceded by a minimal warning.

I understand what you're saying about the new editors etc., but I think that is not the case with MS as they've been around for a while.

My point about comparison to FOOTY (which is just my main point of comparison as that's where I edit mainly), was that explaining that "the Bible isn't considered an RS" and explaining that (for example) "assists aren't added to pages on Wikipedia because they aren't verifiabley sourced to a single definition" isn't so different in terms of time wasting. In both cases there is consensus and also room for someone to argue against the consensus, but to do so on the talkpage, not by editwarring. At the end of the day we also have to be careful not to be frozen in consensus, since consensus can change. --SuperJew (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this one more time here, as it may still be helpful to MS to explain that contentious topics are different, and WP:PIA is pretty much the most contentious topic we've got. If an editor with 5 years/5K edits wades into this area, they're expected to know it's not a happy place where people have loads of patience to explain the basics over and over. FOOTY is a great place to learn basic sourcing policy. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not. If the fact it's 1RR and ECR-only isn't enough to give you a clue, you shouldn't be editing there. And honestly, if you think the general level of patience with RGW/CIR ought to be the same at PIA as it is at FOOTY, you probably should be treading pretty carefully there, too. If you're going to edit there, you probably should put WP:ARCA and WP:AE on your watch, subscribe to new cases around the topic, and keep up with them. It's not for the fainthearted. Valereee (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so I feel the actual problem here isn't "is the Bible an RS", but rather "is the Bible an RS enough source for an article about WP:PIA". Honestly, not sure the answer is one I vibe with, since not accepting the Bible as a source is diregarding a major piece of one side's narrative. But, I didn't come here to discuss that, but rather the blocking process of MS, which I think based on your answers about that, your patience explaining it (which I appreciate very much!), and your suggestion below, that you also aren't completely on board with the swiftness and totality of it. I don't think we have much more to discuss on the subject and appreciate your time and hope the block can be reduced as you suggested.

On the personal note, I have no intention going near the topic on Wikipedia. Have enough of those discussions on my socials, and mostly try to avoid them too ;) --SuperJew (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't suggest converting to a p-block because I thought it was too swift. MS was in fact warned multiple times by other editors in that discussion that they were being disruptive. And when an admin warned them, you called that admin involved because they'd warned them.

The reason I suggested converting to a p-block was because MS has said they will avoid the topic for a while and won't try to argue religious texts as RS for historical facts. And, hoo boy...I'll take your assertion that not accepting religious texts as RS for historical facts for purposes of sourcing on Wikipedia is "disregarding a major piece of one side's narrative" to your talk. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I said the admin seems involved. And I didn't say it's because they'd warned them. I said it's because of comments such as Wow. No way is a religious text a reliable source for history. which reads to me as having strong feelings about the dispute issue. --SuperJew (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To me, it read as simply expressing shock anyone with any understanding of basic sourcing policy whatsoever seriously arguing WP should source to the Bible for history. It's not even a matter of dispute. It's such pure basic policy that it's almost difficult to articulate. OF COURSE we don't source history to religious texts, for heaven's sake. How in the world does someone with 15 years/150K edits even think it's possible to need to "dispute" that? I'm flummoxed. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I am new and apologize for my ignorance but this confuses me. I'm an atheist and would not like seeing wikipedia citing religious text for accurate history. However, the existence of a Psalm about remembering Zion, and yearning for Jerusalem is evidence of Jewish yearning existing prior to 19th century. We can assume the factual details in the psalm are unreliable or false, but the existence of a psalm about Jewish yearning, which predates the 19th century, still seems to show those sentiments are not new. I don't think masked singer was relying on the truth value of people actually crying on the rivers of Babylon.

Also, it was said that masked singer assumed another editor was Muslim but when I read the cited comment and discussion, it referenced Islam, which is a topic that is obviously important to that other user from looking at their edit history.

I feel you are not being fair. Obviously I'm ignorant, but I thought I would share my interpretation. 75.172.5.197 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

IP, rather than cluttering up MS's talk, I'll explain at mine. Valereee (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Yes I do know. I wouldn't continue to say the bible is a historical source. I would stay away from the contentious topic area for a while. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:46 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

converting to partial block Valereee (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller, how would you feel about converting this to a partial block from Zionism and Talk:Zionism? MS is saying they'll stay away from the general topic, and I feel like we could give them a chance to get back to productive editing. I don't think a t-ban is helpful, as too much of their normal editing is Israel-adjacent. (Though I will say, MS, since you say you've been galvanized into the extremely contentious topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict by the events of the past year: in the entire topic, you should at first spend most of your time reading those talk pages, and you should thoroughly understand WP:CTOP before you wade into arguments. The editors at those topics are among Wikipedia's most capable and experienced, their personal ideologies represent all "sides", and they are committed to making sure things are presented as neutrally as possible using the best sources. If you ended up there because you read an outraged opinion piece or tweet, you aren't likely bringing anything to the table the folks at that talk haven't already discussed at length. Wikipedia gets trashed by all sides of ANY contentious topic in partisan media and on social media.) Valereee (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Valeree I guess, although I'm a bit worried about the issues of good faith, etc. Anyway, if MS agrees, I'll do this. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you @Valereee MaskedSinger (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee Could you please do this? I'm feeling unwell. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)