Welcome!
|
Notice
editACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
Articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict are currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:
All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
--TMCk (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Note there's a new restriction: WP:ARBPIA3 - "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." --NeilN talk to me 23:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
June 2024
edit
Hi Apndrew! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Ideological bias on Wikipedia O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
editHi Apndrew! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.
This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.
The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.
Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
edit
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you continue to violate WP:ECR you'll be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- You do not have standing to file a request for arbitration on a topic covered by the above contentious topic restriction. I have reverted your malformed request on this basis. Please cease editing in this topic area until you meet the requirements, or your account will be blocked from editing. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a question (might be a silly/bad question): Why does that extended confirmed restriction exist if admins can just protect all the pages regarding the arab israel conflict? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Because there are a lot of articles that are only partially connected to the conflict and the editing of those articles shouldn't be restricted if possible. Also to allow edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok 24.115.255.37 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Because there are a lot of articles that are only partially connected to the conflict and the editing of those articles shouldn't be restricted if possible. Also to allow edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
edit
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Apndrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I was blocked for filing a request for arbitration, which I understand is the correct path to take when you have a dispute. I was also accused of editing articles that were not restricted by WP:ECR, but the admin claimed they were. For example, I added allegations of antisemitism to a professor's page that was well sourced (she liked tweets claiming that "Playing the victim is what Jews are best at" -- that should not be protected by WP:ECR. Apndrew (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are not permitted to make any edits related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on any type of page on Wikipedia until you have 500 edits and your account is 30 days old. That restriction is broadly construed- anything at all to do with the conflict is covered. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 21 June 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.
Apndrew, so a couple of things. You said, I was blocked for filing a request for arbitration, which I understand is the correct path to take when you have a dispute. Arbitration is not a part of the content dispute resolution process. Arbitration is for much more complicated issues and is a last resort after all other options for dispute resolution have been exhausted, and even then is not for content disputes.
You can appeal an Arbitration Enforcement block -- which is not the same as filing a request for arbitration -- and there are instructions for that in the original block notification. But I'm going to recommend that rather than appealing it, instead you use the next week to learn a bit about what happened and why, and how you can work here productively in the future.
One of the problems you're facing is that you're very new inexperienced here, which means you don't really know how to work here yet, and you're trying to work in areas you shouldn't be working in until you have significantly more experience. This is why we limit editing in some contentious areas -- such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- to editors who have at least 500 edits and three months' experience. It's because editors with very little experience don't realize they're walking into a minefield. Valereee (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've been an editor here for over 14 years. How does that qualify as being "very new here"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apndrew (talk • contribs)
- I've revised. Valereee (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the block wasn't because of the arb request, it was for violating ECR again after warnings from myself and Daniel. It appears that you still haven't familiarized yourself with WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Apndrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The WP:ECR Violations --
The main edits at issue relate to additional information I attempted to add on the "Ideological bias on Wikiepdia" entry. The edits in question are well sourced and related to Anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia (English and Arabic), especially since October 7. After both were removed, I attempted to discuss the matter in the talk page to reach consensus. There were two primary arguments against the additions (see the talk page): 1) Arguing that the World Jewish Congress is not a good source as its a Zionist organization and that such Jews cannot be trusted to fact check; and 2) That "there will be suggestions and actions of bias from both sides...[t]hat happens when you are unbiased."
As to point 1, I won't dignify this blatant bigotry with a response and it is what led to the request for arbitration (see more on this below). As to point 2, this cannot be used as a reason to withhold the added language as there already includes an entire section in the entry dedicated to supposed Pro-Israeli bias on wikipedia (see CAMERA campaign). To allow evidence of pro-Israel entries and deny evidence of anti-Israel evidence (on both Wikipedia English and Arabic) is far from neutral, and extremely hypocritical, especially when you use logic that there are arguments both directions. If that's true, why is only the evidence of supposed pro-Israel bias on Wikipedia allowed in this entry?
The Arbitration Request --
The arbitration request is a related to the above issue. As mentioned in the Wiki related to it, Arbitration is a last resort and only "if you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article" Given the blatant bigotry in the response to my request and the potential bias on Wikipedia itself that may have led to the removal of the attempted additions (which ironically, relate to this very issue), the issue was no longer over the content of the article and something much deeper. In addition, I can't reasonably be expected to resolve the dispute with editors who display bigotry.
As a final comment, there was an additional edit to "Anne Norton"'s Wikipedia entry that accused her of Antisemitism for liking a post that claimed "Playing the victim is what Jews are best at." It appears that an argument was made that this also relates to the contentious topic of the "Arab–Israeli conflict" and thus subject to WP:ECR. Even broadly construed, I fail to see how a post claiming that "Jews" are best at "playing victim" is in any way related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?? By this logic, any time the word Jew is mention, it somehow implicates the "Arab-Israeli conflict"?Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= The reason for my block (see above) says "[t]o enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations". ScottishFinnishRadish states the reason for the block is not because of the arb request, despite the aformentioned sentence stating exactly that. He/she further states I still haven't familiarized myself with the rules on WP:ECR. Nevertheless, let's delve into both issues including the WP:ECR violations, as they are both connected. The WP:ECR Violations -- The main edits at issue relate to additional information I attempted to add on the "Ideological bias on Wikiepdia" entry. The edits in question are well sourced and related to Anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia (English and Arabic), especially since October 7. After both were removed, I attempted to discuss the matter in the talk page to reach consensus. There were two primary arguments against the additions (see the talk page): 1) Arguing that the World Jewish Congress is not a good source as its a Zionist organization and that such Jews cannot be trusted to fact check; and 2) That "there will be suggestions and actions of bias from both sides...[t]hat happens when you are unbiased." As to point 1, I won't dignify this blatant bigotry with a response and it is what led to the request for arbitration (see more on this below). As to point 2, this cannot be used as a reason to withhold the added language as there already includes an entire section in the entry dedicated to supposed Pro-Israeli bias on wikipedia (see CAMERA campaign). To allow evidence of pro-Israel entries and deny evidence of anti-Israel evidence (on both Wikipedia English and Arabic) is far from neutral, and extremely hypocritical, especially when you use logic that there are arguments both directions. If that's true, why is only the evidence of supposed pro-Israel bias on Wikipedia allowed in this entry? The Arbitration Request -- The arbitration request is a related to the above issue. As mentioned in the Wiki related to it, Arbitration is a last resort and only "if you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article" Given the blatant bigotry in the response to my request and the potential bias on Wikipedia itself that may have led to the removal of the attempted additions (which ironically, relate to this very issue), the issue was no longer over the content of the article and something much deeper. In addition, I can't reasonably be expected to resolve the dispute with editors who display bigotry. As a final comment, there was an additional edit to "Anne Norton"'s Wikipedia entry that accused her of Antisemitism for liking a post that claimed "Playing the victim is what Jews are best at." It appears that an argument was made that this also relates to the contentious topic of the "Arab–Israeli conflict" and thus subject to WP:ECR. Even broadly construed, I fail to see how a post claiming that "Jews" are best at "playing victim" is in any way related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?? By this logic, any time the word Jew is mention, it somehow implicates the "Arab-Israeli conflict"? |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1= The reason for my block (see above) says "[t]o enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations". ScottishFinnishRadish states the reason for the block is not because of the arb request, despite the aformentioned sentence stating exactly that. He/she further states I still haven't familiarized myself with the rules on WP:ECR. Nevertheless, let's delve into both issues including the WP:ECR violations, as they are both connected. The WP:ECR Violations -- The main edits at issue relate to additional information I attempted to add on the "Ideological bias on Wikiepdia" entry. The edits in question are well sourced and related to Anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia (English and Arabic), especially since October 7. After both were removed, I attempted to discuss the matter in the talk page to reach consensus. There were two primary arguments against the additions (see the talk page): 1) Arguing that the World Jewish Congress is not a good source as its a Zionist organization and that such Jews cannot be trusted to fact check; and 2) That "there will be suggestions and actions of bias from both sides...[t]hat happens when you are unbiased." As to point 1, I won't dignify this blatant bigotry with a response and it is what led to the request for arbitration (see more on this below). As to point 2, this cannot be used as a reason to withhold the added language as there already includes an entire section in the entry dedicated to supposed Pro-Israeli bias on wikipedia (see CAMERA campaign). To allow evidence of pro-Israel entries and deny evidence of anti-Israel evidence (on both Wikipedia English and Arabic) is far from neutral, and extremely hypocritical, especially when you use logic that there are arguments both directions. If that's true, why is only the evidence of supposed pro-Israel bias on Wikipedia allowed in this entry? The Arbitration Request -- The arbitration request is a related to the above issue. As mentioned in the Wiki related to it, Arbitration is a last resort and only "if you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article" Given the blatant bigotry in the response to my request and the potential bias on Wikipedia itself that may have led to the removal of the attempted additions (which ironically, relate to this very issue), the issue was no longer over the content of the article and something much deeper. In addition, I can't reasonably be expected to resolve the dispute with editors who display bigotry. As a final comment, there was an additional edit to "Anne Norton"'s Wikipedia entry that accused her of Antisemitism for liking a post that claimed "Playing the victim is what Jews are best at." It appears that an argument was made that this also relates to the contentious topic of the "Arab–Israeli conflict" and thus subject to WP:ECR. Even broadly construed, I fail to see how a post claiming that "Jews" are best at "playing victim" is in any way related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?? By this logic, any time the word Jew is mention, it somehow implicates the "Arab-Israeli conflict"? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1= The reason for my block (see above) says "[t]o enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations". ScottishFinnishRadish states the reason for the block is not because of the arb request, despite the aformentioned sentence stating exactly that. He/she further states I still haven't familiarized myself with the rules on WP:ECR. Nevertheless, let's delve into both issues including the WP:ECR violations, as they are both connected. The WP:ECR Violations -- The main edits at issue relate to additional information I attempted to add on the "Ideological bias on Wikiepdia" entry. The edits in question are well sourced and related to Anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia (English and Arabic), especially since October 7. After both were removed, I attempted to discuss the matter in the talk page to reach consensus. There were two primary arguments against the additions (see the talk page): 1) Arguing that the World Jewish Congress is not a good source as its a Zionist organization and that such Jews cannot be trusted to fact check; and 2) That "there will be suggestions and actions of bias from both sides...[t]hat happens when you are unbiased." As to point 1, I won't dignify this blatant bigotry with a response and it is what led to the request for arbitration (see more on this below). As to point 2, this cannot be used as a reason to withhold the added language as there already includes an entire section in the entry dedicated to supposed Pro-Israeli bias on wikipedia (see CAMERA campaign). To allow evidence of pro-Israel entries and deny evidence of anti-Israel evidence (on both Wikipedia English and Arabic) is far from neutral, and extremely hypocritical, especially when you use logic that there are arguments both directions. If that's true, why is only the evidence of supposed pro-Israel bias on Wikipedia allowed in this entry? The Arbitration Request -- The arbitration request is a related to the above issue. As mentioned in the Wiki related to it, Arbitration is a last resort and only "if you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article" Given the blatant bigotry in the response to my request and the potential bias on Wikipedia itself that may have led to the removal of the attempted additions (which ironically, relate to this very issue), the issue was no longer over the content of the article and something much deeper. In addition, I can't reasonably be expected to resolve the dispute with editors who display bigotry. As a final comment, there was an additional edit to "Anne Norton"'s Wikipedia entry that accused her of Antisemitism for liking a post that claimed "Playing the victim is what Jews are best at." It appears that an argument was made that this also relates to the contentious topic of the "Arab–Israeli conflict" and thus subject to WP:ECR. Even broadly construed, I fail to see how a post claiming that "Jews" are best at "playing victim" is in any way related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?? By this logic, any time the word Jew is mention, it somehow implicates the "Arab-Israeli conflict"? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- First source for the addition to Norton's article says
UPenn Professor Anne Norton, who cast doubt on Hamas’ mass rapes
which is plainly connected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)- So if a source itself has a connection to Arab-Israeli conflict, that also counts as editing a page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? That's as tenuous as it gets. Apndrew (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Since October 7, Anne Norton has liked antisemitic tweets on x.com, including a tweet claiming that "Playing the victim is what Jews are best at" and shared a post calling the brutal rape of Jewish women "alleged."
That is directly about the Palestine/Israel conflict, down to the date. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)- Since you have issues with the date, I assume you would agree then that if the edit was simply "Anne Norton has liked antisemitic tweets on x.com, including a tweet claiming that 'Playing the victim is what Jews are best at'", it would not be about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Apndrew (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- So if a source itself has a connection to Arab-Israeli conflict, that also counts as editing a page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? That's as tenuous as it gets. Apndrew (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apndrew, I'm not going to try to get into the content stuff you're arguing needs arbitration, but just to clear up a misunderstanding: [t]o enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations is not an indication the block was for filing an arb request. (Filing that arb request was evidence of inexperience and lack of knowledge, but making a bad arb request is not by itself a blockable offense.) Then you say states the reason for the block is not because of the arb request, despite the aformentioned sentence stating exactly that. You've misunderstood the statement, it did not state "exactly that". The block was to enforce an arbitration decision. That arbitration decision long predates your request. The block was not because you made an arb request. It was because of ongoing ECR vios, which include making that request and multiple other edits. You can't edit in the topic area. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)