Revision as of 06:44, 14 October 2015 editMaxSem (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers16,093 edits →Unblock request: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:59, 14 October 2015 edit undoStrivingsoul (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users841 edits →Unblock requestNext edit → | ||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
{{unblock|1=An admin perceived my characterization of a Jewish user ] while as to be , and subsequently proceeded to block me for 72 hours based on that charge. In protest, I explained to him that I thought I was simply calling a spade a spade, and , and hence my unblock request. I understand I should have acted with more discretion especially when there's already an extended ANI going on against me with some people accusing me of exactly that offense (which of course I have strongly rejected). I admit I should've acted with more forbearance with respect to ], and hence request appeal. ] (]) 06:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)}} | {{unblock|1=An admin perceived my characterization of a Jewish user ] while as to be , and subsequently proceeded to block me for 72 hours based on that charge. In protest, I explained to him that I thought I was simply calling a spade a spade, and , and hence my unblock request. I understand I should have acted with more discretion especially when there's already an extended ANI going on against me with some people accusing me of exactly that offense (which of course I have strongly rejected). I admit I should've acted with more forbearance with respect to ], and hence request appeal. ] (]) 06:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)}} | ||
:Do you realise that no, Drmes didn't say he was overreacting. It was rather a way to suggest asking for a third opinion. So, my third opinion is that the block wasn't an overreaction. I myself could've slapped even a longer block. ] (]) 06:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC) | :Do you realise that no, Drmes didn't say he was overreacting. It was rather a way to suggest asking for a third opinion. So, my third opinion is that the block wasn't an overreaction. I myself could've slapped even a longer block. ] (]) 06:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
:: {{ping|MaxSem}} Well, he suggested me an unblock request two times. So that's what I thought he might have believed. See . But anyways, I don't see how calling a spade a spade (and a disruptive one) warrants block. "SunniWarrior" clearly masqueraded himself as such while not being a Muslim or a Sunni. How could I have interpreted that in a positive way in addition to his disruptive editing? ] (]) 06:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:59, 14 October 2015
Welcome!
|
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anders Feder (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
User page
I have blanked your user page per WP:UP#PROMO. Please read and understand Misplaced Pages:User pages before adding it again. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. I noticed that your user page may not meet Misplaced Pages's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-userreq}}
to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Misplaced Pages's user page guideline. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I remember I had asked an experienced muslim Wikipedian about whether or not my user page violates WP:UPNOT. And he told me that it doesn't! Apparently Misplaced Pages allows some description of our personal beliefs on our page. And as for the movie, I have no connection or commercial ties with it. The movie was just recently released in Iran and Canada and it has received many positive reviews. And I thought it can help to counter the wave of Islamophobia in the West. And this has actually been one of the motives of the movie's producers. And that's also why I thought it is useful to share it on my page. However if it qualifies for "blatant" promotion I have no protest. But I really don't have any commercial relation with that! Strivingsoul (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I can't help but notice that in every comment you make and in every discussion, you appeal to an authority outside yourself for guidance, instruction, and insight. I'm genuinely curious, do you ever have your own thoughts and ideas, and do you ever think for yourself without appealing to other people or ideas? I don't mean to offend you, I just wonder if you have ever studied critical thinking and have applied critical analysis to your own beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: You're not offending me, and, in fact, it is refreshing to get a feed back in this site that is not loaded with personal attacks and prejudices as I had received lately in ANI. But as for your good-faith advice on critical thinking, I should say I have done that extensively and still do in my life. Critical thinking is not something to ever get enough of. But as for my beliefs, I've been studying both Modern and traditional thoughts for the last 10 years of my life. I have a wide interest in religion, philosophy, politics, economics and history, and through my studies I've learned about a myriad of different philosophical and ideological schools. But above all I've been blessed to be born in Iran and learn about a widely unknown philosophical/cultural heritage, i.e. the Shia Iranian cutlural heritage. So perhaps that's what makes me a little (or maybe very) different!
- But as for your allegation of appeal to authority I don't see what example -- other than my above-mentioned appeal to a user to give me a perspective on an issue which is more or less influenced by subjective factors -- might have given you the impression that I appeal to authority "in every comment and in every discussion"! I thought his feedback was useful as he is more familiar with the general mainstream atmosphere in English Misplaced Pages and how my user page could be perceived and interpreted by the average Wikipedian in relation to WP:UP#PROMO. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I can't help but notice that in every comment you make and in every discussion, you appeal to an authority outside yourself for guidance, instruction, and insight. I'm genuinely curious, do you ever have your own thoughts and ideas, and do you ever think for yourself without appealing to other people or ideas? I don't mean to offend you, I just wonder if you have ever studied critical thinking and have applied critical analysis to your own beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is generally considered civil and polite to engage a user before you blank their user page.--Adam in MO Talk 03:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- The MfD discussion was closed as "keep". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget to sign your posts.
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.--Adam in MO Talk 03:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sure! And that was just a slip! Thanks for notifying me, though. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Help:Using talk pages
Per best practices:
- "To respond to a discussion already in progress, click the "edit" link at the section heading and add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it. When doing this, keep in mind the advice given below about indentation."
- "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to."
- Per WP:TOPPOST: "The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page, then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. A quick way to do this is to use the "New section" tab next to the "Edit" button on the talk page you are on. To avoid confusion, the latest comment in a thread should be posted in chronological order and not placed above earlier comments."
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Houthis. 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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.
I've left the same message on SunniWarrior's page. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Virditas: Did you see that I had already warned SunniWarrior multiple times on his talkpage before reverting his repeated vandalism? Moreover, despite the requirement of WP:ONUS, I took the burden of opening up the talk page and demand SunniWarrior to stop mutilating the page content based on WP:DONTLIKEIT. Yet SunniWarrior continued with his vandalism. He must be blocked for ignoring multiple warnings yet I'm being accused of edit-warring for protecting the long-standing state of the page. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Viriditas was right--you were edit warring. Moreover, calling your opponents' edits "vandalism" in a content dispute is rarely a good thing, and the IDONTLIKEIT charge--well, we should just scrap that stupid essay since it always applies to both sides. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Virditas: Did you see that I had already warned SunniWarrior multiple times on his talkpage before reverting his repeated vandalism? Moreover, despite the requirement of WP:ONUS, I took the burden of opening up the talk page and demand SunniWarrior to stop mutilating the page content based on WP:DONTLIKEIT. Yet SunniWarrior continued with his vandalism. He must be blocked for ignoring multiple warnings yet I'm being accused of edit-warring for protecting the long-standing state of the page. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware until just now of this ridiculous remark, which is offensive whether you understand what is typically meant by the term "Crypto-Jew" or not. That your opponent is now also blocked doesn't take away from the fact that you cannot make such comments here. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I was simply describing a Pro-Israeli Jew who masquerades as a militant Sunni Muslim to push his Zionist propaganda into the page and the talk page. It seems that others have a monopoly to accuse me of all sorts of vices but I am expected to be a saint and take into account all the nuances of civility to the last tiny bit. There seems to be no balance in applying rules when it comes to me and my counterparts. Anyway, I was going to leave this message to your recent reply in ANI which I'm now blocked to even participate. Don't you think this block is unfair considering that I can not even participate in an ANI that involves me and a massive bandwagon biased charges against me? Here's the message I wanted to leave for you:
The reason I am urged to cite some referenced and substantiated political statements here is precisely because people are unfairly accusing me of things that can only be refuted by providing evidences that counter their allegations. How else I'm to respond when my views are repeatedly attacked as being anti-Semitic and fringe, while there is no shortage of sources and evidences that prove that they are to the contrary widely acknowledged but marginalized facts?! The other reason is that citing this information seems to be the only way I can counter several deeply routed systematic bias (including political and cultural) against the subjects that I've been working on. I often feel the need to broaden the perspective of Wikipedians who are extremely biased against my POVs. And isn't that an inevitable consequence of working against Systematic bias. Do you know an alternative better approach that I can defend WP:NPOV as affected by Systematic bias? Strivingsoul (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you should have used different words. Or you could have let it be. Right now you look like your own worst enemy, and I wouldn't overestimate the broadening you have accomplished; that ANI discussion seems evidence of the contrary. Sorry, I'm just being a realist here. But don't take my word for it: place an unblock request and see if the next admin thinks I overreacted. Best, Drmies (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I wonder if your realism simply reinforces the strong prejudice I have been countering, and you yourself came in to oppose. Didn't you yourself (and a few others) rightly see that users are being strongly biased and unfair? And didn't you see merit in my opinions to challenge the obvious injustice against me? I thought with more tolerance and exchange of ideas we could convince others to acknowledge their prejudice but you seem to be killing this valuable opportunity right before its fruition. Having said that, I still feel the urge to thank you for exerting fairness when it is not popular to do so. Best. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- As an admin I'm probably closer to the status quo than other editors, at least in principle. Either way, the language that you used, I deemed it not acceptable; to put it more clearly, I think it verged into the antisemitic. And while I think that the ANI thread and the call for a site ban were unjustified based on the evidence presented, I also think that your somewhat...verbose and combative style of commenting does not contribute to a good editing atmosphere. Some of your opponents exhibit similar characteristics, it is true, but here it's your edits we're talking about. Believe, I do not like blocking in such cases, and by all means go ahead and place an unblock request. The SunniWarrior, by the way, is blocked indefinitely; I did that before I saw your comment directed at them. Best, Drmies (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to why you believe that because you think that some people are biased against you -- for which you've given ample cause -- Misplaced Pages civility policies are suspended in your favor when you take it upon yourself to insult other editors. They are not. You shouldn't place reliance on your suppositions that Drmies and I see merit in your positions or that we're "on your side." We simply feel that a ban at this time is a disproportionate response. To the degree you insist on being a disruptive presence, that stance can change, and I'm about one more violating outburst from you from flipping my position at ANI. Ravenswing 07:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Ravenswing: But where I have actually insulted anyone?! As for this case in particular, like I said, I thought I was just calling a spade a spade when I described a partisan pro-Israel Jewish editor masquerading as a "SunniWarrior" a "crypto-Jewish SunniWarrior". I admit I was wrong in assuming that my meaning would be understood despite providing a link to the actual fact I was pointing to.
- I also know that you are equally bored and tired of this whole unintended mess, but like I also said to Drmies, how else I could respond to subsequent allegations against me? Am I not supposed to defend myself against unfair allegations and judgements? Isn't this the inevitable result of having a dozen commentators coming in and passing judgement based on pure knee-jerk reactions to an original post that has lumped together multiple unresolved issues with the clear intent of provoking that hurried judgements?! And from another perspective, wasn't this whole thing a blessing in disguise if it helps to improve the opponents' understanding of this whole debate over Israel, Zionism and anti-Semitism? I hope these are my last words for it's been already further ado. So as you say, it is perhaps better if I just shut up from now on and let the admins decide whatever they deem best. But please drop a link to this discussion in ANI so that others can also read this last related exchange. I can't post there for my temporary block as of now. And lastly, we finally didn't seem to conclude the debate over David Duke and his book. The ANI apparently did not address any of the original issues raised despite so much extension. So please also tell us what will be the next correct course of action, if I am allowed to still work in Wiki. Thanks. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- First off, read WP:CIVIL. I don't mean glossing over the link; read the link. You will find, in fact, that you are not allowed to respond in kind even if you are insulted in obscene, gutter terms, and so blatantly that no one on Earth could mistake the intent. Your sole recourse, in such instances, is to alert an admin to the problem. As to when you've insulted anyone? Come now. I'm no more an idiot than the next editor. Perhaps this edit , when you call an editor "a typically paranoid Jewish settler of a genocidal state brainwashed to the core by Zionist propaganda." Or this edit, where you claim an editor is driven by "anti-Muslim prejudices ..." Or this edit , or this one , and so on and so forth. These contain pejorative turns of phrase, and you plainly meant them to be pejorative. Ravenswing 11:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I wonder if your realism simply reinforces the strong prejudice I have been countering, and you yourself came in to oppose. Didn't you yourself (and a few others) rightly see that users are being strongly biased and unfair? And didn't you see merit in my opinions to challenge the obvious injustice against me? I thought with more tolerance and exchange of ideas we could convince others to acknowledge their prejudice but you seem to be killing this valuable opportunity right before its fruition. Having said that, I still feel the urge to thank you for exerting fairness when it is not popular to do so. Best. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Unblock request
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Strivingsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
An admin perceived my characterization of a Jewish user engaged in disruptive editing while masquerading as "SunniWarrior" as "a crypto-Jewish SunniWarrior" to be "verging into Anti-Semitism", and subsequently proceeded to block me for 72 hours based on that charge. In protest, I explained to him that I thought I was simply calling a spade a spade, and he told me that I should have been more cautious but admitted that he might have also overreacted by blocking me, and therefore he himself encouraged me to appeal the block, and hence my unblock request. I understand I should have acted with more discretion especially when there's already an extended ANI going on against me with some people accusing me of exactly that offense (which of course I have strongly rejected). I admit I should've acted with more forbearance with respect to WP:CIVILITY, and hence request appeal. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)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=An admin perceived my characterization of a Jewish user ] while as to be , and subsequently proceeded to block me for 72 hours based on that charge. In protest, I explained to him that I thought I was simply calling a spade a spade, and , and hence my unblock request. I understand I should have acted with more discretion especially when there's already an extended ANI going on against me with some people accusing me of exactly that offense (which of course I have strongly rejected). I admit I should've acted with more forbearance with respect to ], and hence request appeal. ] (]) 06:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |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=An admin perceived my characterization of a Jewish user ] while as to be , and subsequently proceeded to block me for 72 hours based on that charge. In protest, I explained to him that I thought I was simply calling a spade a spade, and , and hence my unblock request. I understand I should have acted with more discretion especially when there's already an extended ANI going on against me with some people accusing me of exactly that offense (which of course I have strongly rejected). I admit I should've acted with more forbearance with respect to ], and hence request appeal. ] (]) 06:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |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=An admin perceived my characterization of a Jewish user ] while as to be , and subsequently proceeded to block me for 72 hours based on that charge. In protest, I explained to him that I thought I was simply calling a spade a spade, and , and hence my unblock request. I understand I should have acted with more discretion especially when there's already an extended ANI going on against me with some people accusing me of exactly that offense (which of course I have strongly rejected). I admit I should've acted with more forbearance with respect to ], and hence request appeal. ] (]) 06:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Do you realise that no, Drmes didn't say he was overreacting. It was rather a way to suggest asking for a third opinion. So, my third opinion is that the block wasn't an overreaction. I myself could've slapped even a longer block. Max Semenik (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- @MaxSem: Well, he suggested me an unblock request two times. So that's what I thought he might have believed. See his second suggestion. But anyways, I don't see how calling a spade a spade (and a disruptive one) warrants block. "SunniWarrior" clearly masqueraded himself as such while not being a Muslim or a Sunni. How could I have interpreted that in a positive way in addition to his disruptive editing? Strivingsoul (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)