An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Avraham Shapira, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kiddushin, Efrat and Beit Yosef.
Thanks… :( Number 57 any chance you can take a look at what transpired over the past day?… Totally beyond what I’ve ever had to handle. I usually just focus on Jewish history, and don’t have to deal with people. I spoke out once and got banned immediately.
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).
Does not even begin to address everything at the ANI thread. Someone who would even consider writing (less than 12 hours ago!) the sentence Wikipedia is way too important to be run by radical Islamic propagandists, working in tandem with “they/them” computer geeks who hate Jews. needs to be indefinitely blocked. If you want to be unblocked, you are going to need to take the standard offer, which requires zero edits to Wikipedia for six months. In the meantime, you can contribute to our sister projects, such as Simple English Wikipedia, to prove you can be a productive contributor.
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.
UPDATE (Response to decline reason: An indefinite ban for one comment? I didn’t realize I was in North Korea. This is unjust, and frankly ridiculous. Your personal feelings clearly played a role in this decision, and you are proving my point with your actions. This is not a win for you, and definitely not a win for the platform.)
Appeal: In a single day, after having no issues with anyone throughout my time on Wikipedia, I went from receiving a temporary block (for the first time ever) to being indefinitely blocked by the same administrator an hour or two later. What triggered this? I edited the page about the recent Amsterdam attacks against Jews, adding information about Dutch authorities considering it an antisemitic attack (which was shockingly missing from the article), detailing the methods of assault, and including a sentence about how several media outlets described it as a pogrom. Right after editing, I was confronted on three different discussion boards, and initially, I didn’t understand why my work kept getting reverted. When I was informed about a reversion rule, I refrained from reinstating my edits and decided to wait for additional reports to emerge.
By then, however, I had already been labeled a “disruptive editor” by the same two users, who then continued to remove more information about the assault while adding details suggesting that the victims were the violent ones. Now, the administrator is claiming that I’m indefinitely banned due to a personal attack, even though they had already given me a temporary ban for that action. I find this response unreasonable, given my clean record and the amount of work I’ve contributed to this platform up until now. I understand the need for maintaining respectful dialogue, but this? This feels like overreach and unnecessary. I apologize for my comment. I typed it while emotional, and shouldn’t have. Techiya1925 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed your contributions but it seems clear that this block is based on comments you have made, on talk pages or in your edit summaries, and not your article edits. There is absolutely no tolerance for any personal attacks based on race, gender, sexual identity, ethnicity or religion and indefinite blocks are the typical response, even for one comment if that is seen as unacceptable. This is, at its roots, a collaborative editing project and no matter how positive your previous contributions were here, we can't allow personal attacks to exist on this project, whether they are against a specific editor or the project as a whole.
I see two avenues for you. You can take the Standard Offer, do not edit Wikipedia logged out or with sockpuppets for 6 months and return to post another unblock request. If this is your choice, it really helps to contribute to another WikiMedia project, whether that is Simple English or a Wikipedia in another language. Your second option is to read over Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and let it guide you to write another unblock request where you state that this was out-of-character for you. The role of administrators on Wikipedia is to remove elements of disruption so that editors are free and encouraged to work. You have to make reassurances that you will not cause disruption any longer and that you can contain yourself when you are upset. But I really encourage you to read that Guide, most blocked editors do not and, partially as a result, do not become unblocked. LizRead!Talk!04:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz
I’ve spoken to others and read about people who’ve made questionable comments like mine—comments that weren’t even direct attacks—and they only received two-day bans. Especially since I hadn’t been given a warning, and had no prior problems with anybody. You say that comments like mine warrant the most severe punishment, and you’re a teacher? You’re making a mistake. This is a targeted purge of accounts like mine, who primarily edit Jewish and Israeli projects, and it’s clear that no matter my single comment, the perpetrators would’ve found a way to block me. I am an article maker. I normally don’t involve myself with petty arguments. Please take a look at my work, and tell me I’m not a valuable member of the community. I have been working on these projects every day! Please don’t duck out on the responsibility of due diligence… This work matters to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techiya1925 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This block is about a personal attack you made. It has nothing to do with discrimination. There are plenty of compentent editors working peacefully on Jewish and Israeli articles who are not blocked. If you keep alleging this warped perception of yours, instead of taking responsibility for what you DID do wrong, then you will never be unblocked. I do think you were a valuable member of this community which is why I'm spending some of my time here talking to a blocked editor, giving you my best advice. You can continue to insist you did nothing wrong and never be unblocked or accept you made a mistake and perhaps eventually bet unblocked, it's up to you. LizRead!Talk!06:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Techiya1925 please do read through all the rules and appeal. As I said, it's a stressful, hostile environment and we need to be model users. Your edits on Judaism-related topics were quality and well-appreciated, and Wikipedia does suffer from a dearth of users editing Jewish articles.
As for Wikipedia's antisemitism problem and other systemic issues, well, we're going to need to prove it with evidence. It will be a long haul. Scharb (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Chazarat Hashatz. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it includes WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
I'd say the problem with the article is that isn't really written for a general audience and it seems to be relying on religious primary sources such as Orach Chaim. Sometimes translating an article from another language can be fraught, because it still has to meet the standards of English Wikipedia. I think it's hard to write an article on a topic like this because you need to try to find some sources that are more about the 3rd party impact or reception for a general audience. Andre🚐08:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your response. This is an article about a specific prayer, an important part of daily services, such as Sim Shalom, Aleinu, etc… Can you go look at the references? Nothing is original research, which was what the user tagged it as, and the reason why he draftified it. Best regards. Techiya1925 (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Bitul Torah. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it includes WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
I just looked through your articles, and it seems like the majority of them are about Christianity? Confused why you deleted this because of notability, as it has to do with Jewish theology. It is a page that currently exists in multiple languages. I would have thought you are interested in theology. Or… Techiya1925 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you Isabelle's action is the one that any uninvolved admin would do. You were blocked for the comments you made which were some kind of veiled dig or jab at "they/them" pronoun editors. That is a very offensive and upsetting thing to a lot of people. You should apologize for your actions and promise not to do them again. It's a shame to see someone who was making legit contributions go down this road. Take a step back, calm down and take a deep breath and try to see things in perspective. Do you think I am someone who would support an unfair targeted block? Andre🚐07:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly isn't original research, anyone with a formal Jewish education can tell you that. In the Hebrew wiki, it's considered common knowledge (it's a common term found in the Talmud), but the English wiki has to abide by different cultural standards and thus a higher bar.
I'll get to work and textually substantiate the claims in the draft, among other needed work to bring it up to the standards for a general audience. Scharb (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal
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).
I am deeply sorry, and feel very bad about my comment. I apologize. I give my word that I will never speak that way ever again. I promise. I’m submitting a fresh appeal, as recommended by an administrator. I truly am sorry. This was unbecoming of me and of this platform. I really value the work that I do on Wikipedia, it’s an important part of my life. You have my word that this will never happen again.
A few quotes to note:
“I've looked over their talk page comments for the past two days and aside from this diff shared by Black Kite, I can see them getting upset over a contentious subject but that's the only attack I can see… this does seem like an isolated incident….” Liz
2. ”It's a shame to see someone who was making legit contributions go down this road. Take a step back, calm down and take a deep breath…” Andre
3. “Some editors frequently initiate edit wars with good-faith editors on a regular basis in an attempt to balk them into violating 1RR, get them banned, and thus systemically eliminate editors with opposing perspectives from Wikipedia community.” Scharb
Please forgive me, I have learned from this. I am ashamed of my words, and will never get into a fight on this app again. If I disagree, I will politely take it to the talk page, and wait for a discussion. I have read the rule-book now.
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.
I am not prepared to unblock on my own because it is very late at night in California where I live and I do not want to analyze the full story at this moment. But this comment is for any reviewing administrator and if no action has been taken when I awake, I will come back here. I think that in the heat of the moment, and possibly not fully familiar with our behavioral guidelines, this editor made one completely unacceptable comment. A comment that I found shocking. But the unblock request is unusually self-reflective and comes off to me as sincere. I think that this editor now likely understands our behavioral expectations and knows that an unblock would be a WP:LASTCHANCE. So, please consider that. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cullen, I appreciate you being empathetic, and recognizing my sincerity. I really do mean it. I understand that this would be a WP:LASTCHANCE, and am not worried about running into problems in the future. I will keep the rules in mind. Best regards. Techiya1925 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: to clarify some, while the "they/them" comment was what led me to an indefinite block, Techiya1925's overall behavior in the PIA contentious topic is what led me to the initial block:
Also add to that their more recent comment, bringing up an editor's focus on Christianity articles when wondering why they were draftifying this user's articles. Any admin considering an unblock here should also consider an indefinite topic ban from the PIA area. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈09:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban; propose reduction in sentence to 3 months This block proves their point, exactly. Techiya accused other users of trying to get them banned for having a different opinion, and that opinion was what those users successfully got them banned for. The user was ganged up on. The usual suspects did provoke the user into an emotional state for the clear intent of getting them banned. And that's what happened. It's exactly what I predicted, because it is the same old story and it's a systemic problem on Wikipedia, the documentation of which is a long term project of mine.
Members of the same cabal repeatedly tried to have me banned for "gaming the system" even though my account is 18 years old and my behavior has been immaculate. I have experienced the same frustration.
This user has made substantive and quality contributions to Judaism-related articles. The Judaism portal has been dead for a while now, and Wikipedia suffers from a dearth of editors on this subject. Users like this shouldn't be discarded so haphazardly over understandable frustration. Techiya can become a valuable member of this community if given a chance.
No, anyone who would even consider saying "Wikipedia is way too important to be run by radical Islamic propagandists, working in tandem with “they/them” computer geeks who hate Jews." is clearly not ready for a collaborative editing environment, and certainly isn't ready to work in a high-tension topic area like the Palestine/Israel conflict. If tensions are so high in that topic area that Techiya1925 was "provoked" into saying that, then yes, they should absolutely be topic-banned if unblocked to prevent further personal attacks. CFA💬21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Isabelle under investigation? "You are under investigation, Isabelle. Techiya1925 07:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)"
May I suggest that this back and forth isn't very productive? The user has expressed contrition and this is their first offense. An uninvolved admin will decide at their discretion if their appeal is worth granting based on the non-punitive nature of things. Let's not project a major dispute on this instance. The user was blocked for poor behavior and they are not going to repeat it according to them; leave it there. Andre🚐21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the words, Scharb… I noticed you mentioned at the end that I attempted to evade a ban? Not sure what that’s about, as I have not. Maybe I’m misunderstanding. Sending regards. Techiya1925 (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was said you were editing while logged off? That seemed to be evasion of some kind, part of the same aggro edit war incident. Am I the one who's mistaken? Scharb (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isabelle Belato, I propose reducing the block to three months with a firm warning against engaging in any personal attacks or harassment. I also propose a six month topic ban on the Israel-Palestine conflict going back to 1948, with a firm warning against any disruptive editing. I await your feedback. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Techiya1925, I have changed the block length to three months and imposed the six month topic ban. Please heed the firm warnings I gave you above. I limited the topic ban to the post-1948 Israel-Palestine conflict because I see that you have done some good work on pre-1948 Yishuv topics. Please be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sockpuppet
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Dag21902190 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dag21902190. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
