PROFILPELAJAR.COM

November 2024

Hello, I'm GrabUp. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Undiscussed addition GrabUp - Talk 17:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Introduction to contentious topics

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated violations of WP:PIA, and an obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

109.64.104.168 (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. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. 109.64.104.168 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. Neither the arbitration enforcement noticeboard nor the administrators' noticeboard have the authority to overturn this policy. Nor, frankly, is Wikipedia the place to express political opinions. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Yamla (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

/

109.64.104.168 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)hello @yamla , Could you please provide explanation why dose the BREAK ALL RULES policy dose not take precedence here over ECR? It seams to me that I have not express political opinions but Opinions regarding the bureaucratic procedure of Wikipedia. was there any other policy that I have broke beside not being a register user?[reply]

ECR exists to maintain Wikipedia. If you wish to change the arbitration decision, you are free to attempt this after your block for violating it ends. That's only in a week and it'll take far longer for you to accomplish your goal (I mean, realistically, there's exactly zero chance you will accomplish your goal, but you can try). This is my last response to you. --Yamla (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not cleat to me Why was I banned exactly, I would appreciate if you could please provide DIFFs and explain to me like I am an idiot what I did Wrong, What worde that I have wrote exactly in what I have wrote was an obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. @Rosguill @Yamla

regarding the rest of your comment:

"That's only in a week and it'll take far longer for you to accomplish your goal"

could you please explain what do you think my goal is?

I thought I am here to build an encyclopedia but it sound like you casting aspiration regarding what I am here for something else, would you care to explain exactly what did you meant?

"if you wish to change the arbitration decision, you are free to attempt this after your block for violating it ends."

could you explain how Can I change a arbitration decision if no arbitration decision took place and I was banned by the same guidelines I have expressed my ? 109.64.104.168 (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for violating Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles. If you wish to be able to edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict without adhering to the extended confirmed restriction, you must convince WP:ARBCOM to overturn their decision. That would optimistically take a minimum of several weeks of work. Waiting a small number of days to start that process is not unreasonable. If you do not wish to overturn ArbCom's ruling with regard to editing in the Arab-Israeli conflict subject area, you are required to abide by their restrictions. Which means no editing in that subject area at all, unless you do so using an account that has extended-confirmed status (apart from the exceptions specified). --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're doing well!

I’ve been reviewing the policy, which states: “If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment.” I’ve tried to locate any such invisible comment in my edit history but was unable to find it.

as You have mentioned, (apart from the exceptions specified), I was under the impression that my edits were flowing the Policy since the exceptions says "Non-extended-confirmed editors (aka me) may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area".

which was exactly what I have done.

I’m reaching out to kindly ask for your assistance in clarifying your decision regarding my recent edits. Specifically, I would appreciate it if either @Rosguill, as the enforcing admin, or you, as the reviewing admin, could provide more details on which of my edits you found disruptive.

I’d be grateful for a DIFF link or a specific reference to the "repeated violations" that led to the sanctions.

As the policy outlines: “When in doubt, do not make the edit. Instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask whoever imposed the ban to clarify.”

With this in mind, I am respectfully requesting clarification on what exactly was wrong with my edits, so I can better understand the issue and avoid any further disruption in the future.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

I appreciate your help and wish you a wonderful day! 109.64.104.168 (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly trolling and have absolutely exhausted my patience. I will not respond further. Do not ping me again. --Yamla (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In controversial topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, new users with strong views, especially pro-Israel perspectives, are often treated with suspicion, automatically flagged as sock puppets or banned due to technicalities. This stems from a common assumption that new accounts holding certain opinions—especially when they resemble banned users or push a particular agenda—are part of a manipulation effort. The focus on sock puppetry (using multiple accounts to distort discussions) leads to these new accounts being scrutinized, sometimes unfairly, based on their opinions rather than their actual actions or edits.

Meanwhile, older accounts—even those that focus on a single issue (Single Purpose Accounts or SPAs)—are more likely to be treated leniently. Their history of contributions, even if narrow, grants them trust. They’ve built a reputation over time, so their edits are more often accepted without suspicion, even if their views align with controversial stances. This creates a double standard, where newer users holding similar opinions are treated as suspicious, while long-standing users are not.

The problem arises when these new accounts are assumed to be biased or manipulated simply for expressing a view that mirrors a blocked user or an existing pro-Israel stance. They’re often flagged or deleted for being "sock puppets" without proper investigation into their actual contributions, while older accounts are allowed to continue, even if they have similar focus or bias. This reflects a technical bias where the system over-prioritizes account history over the quality of edits, leading to an unequal application of rules.

This discrimination based on account age and the assumption of bad faith is unfair and undermines the diversity of opinions that should be allowed in debates. Users should be judged by their actions and content, not just their account’s history or the political views they express. The system needs a more consistent and transparent approach that evaluates all users equally, ensuring that contributions are the focus, not merely account age or assumptions about political agendas. Only then can we avoid creating an echo chamber where only certain viewpoints are allowed to thrive.|

its a shame that This is your response for conversation attempts