User talk:96.24.75.223

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sabra (company), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Can you explain which part of the edit included "original research"? --96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sabra (company), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions.
Where is anti-Israel sourced from. You're a WP:POV pusher using WP:POINTy means to promote your personal agenda. Feel free to discuss this on the talk page of the article (not purely with me) and explain why your use of WP:ALLEGED and the overall refactoring is WP:NPOV as opposed to blatantly WP:WEASEL. Your editing history indicates that this is something of a hobby horse for you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

>> "Where is anti-Israel sourced from."

Citation # 21 -- "Michael Kotzin, executive vice president of the Jewish United Fund, said in a statement on DePaul’s reversal that the anti-Sabra campaign revealed deep anti-Israel sentiment."

Your additional personal accusations against me are not appreciated.

--96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

>> "...explain why your use of WP:ALLEGED and the overall refactoring is WP:NPOV as opposed to blatantly WP:WEASEL."

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Expressions_of_doubt:

"...although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined..."

--96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to take it to the article's talk page where other editors can assess the arguments. One source weighed up against the other sources not using anti-Israel does not equal neutrality of language... plus feel free to take it to the WP:NPOVN and open a discussion as to the use of "alleged" for the purposes of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I asked you to take it to the article's talk page..."

Your tone sounds bossy and is not appreciated.

--96.24.75.223 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for WP:BITEing. Could you please take it to the article's talk page in order that other editors can involve themselves in the evaluation of the article content so that we can establish a transparency of process with regards to decisions. It's far more conducive to WP:CIVIL discussion in lieu of private bickering. Thank you, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why don't you take it to the article's talk page in order that other editors can involve themselves in the evaluation of the article content?--96.24.75.223 (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Euphoria42. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sabra (company) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Euphoria42 (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Euphoria42, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Don't template the regulars. If you have an issue with content, take it to the talk page of the relevant article. If you have an issue with a user, take it to the WP:ANI. Do not vandalise other user's own page in order to be WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Euphoria42. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

"Disruptive editing" is a catch-all term here, which aims to include your edits to Sabra (company) and your harassment of other editors in that expansive and hollow ANI claim. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not really deserve this block because I did not really engage in "persistent disruptive editing". As the blocking user has stated themselves "Disruptive editing is a catch-all term here". It is just a subjective label that does not accurately describe my activity. Whether my edits to [1] were biased or not, and whether the article is biased the way it is without my edits is debatable. I have attempted to start a process of reaching a consensus regarding how that article should be worded by engaging the user who reverted my last edit [2] In fact, my last edit to that article was over a month ago, and I got blocked supposedly for that only now, even after I stopped editing that article and attempted to engage in a discussion with the user who reverted my changes, instead of just reverting their changes back to mine. This block is really in retaliation for me filling an ANI report [3], which the blocking user has mentioned in their reason for the block, and also described as "hollow' and "harassment". Specifically, the report I filed was neither "hollow" nor "harassment", because it did raise valid issues regarding the bahavior of the subject, which the administrators that reviewed that report have acknowledged and admonished the subject for. The subject has also partially admitted to wrong-doing. Either the blocking user cannot tell the difference between what is "hollow" and not, between what is "harassment" and not, and between was is "disruptive" and not, or they did this in an attempt to punish me for filing that ANI report, and / or both. According to [4], "a block is not [supposed to be] intended as punishment". So either way, this block is not appropriate here, and generally an abuse of authority. The blocking user did this in a pathetic attempt to insult me, as if I care about their opinion. This does not effect me personally. All they really did was insult themselves by exposing their flawed thinking, but that's not what's important either. What is really important here, and the real victim here is not me, not them, but Wikipedia itself, and everybody who either contributes to it or reads it. By attempting to punish me for casting light on the bad behavior of their friend, they're sending a message to all the other users out there, that if they stand up for what's right and bring attention to the bad behavior of certain users who get favoritism from certain administrator users, then they're likely to get punished for it. This perception creates a chilling effect that damages the public trust for Wikipedia's fairness, content, and the practicality of its stated mission of empowering and engaging people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:35, 5 October 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

In fact I have addressed the reasons why this block is not appropriate and not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I have read over the criteria that the denying administrator has used to deny my unblock request here [5] Of the 12 items currently listed out as part of their decision-making process, most are subjective. For example, just the title of item #5, which is "Blame the blocking admin" sounds pretty biased against any appeal that criticises the blocking administrator. In objective decision-making, the kinds of things considered should be if the block really does prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, if that really was the purpose of the block, and if the appeal explains why the block is wrong. Criticism of the blocking administrator is not always illegitimate, in the same way that blocks are not always legitimate. Objective evaluation is rare because it is expensive in terms of time and brain power. It takes time and effort to really think and look at issues from a fresh and unbiased perspective rather than just prepare 12 catch-all categories and dump almost everything into one or the other. In any case, I'm glad that this rejecting administrator has rejected my appeal, because given their subjective approach, had they removed the block it would make me look bad as if the block was removed not because of my objective arguments against it, but out of some subjective favoritism and / or something like how their mood was on that particular day. What I ask for here is that my appeal be evaluated objectively rather than subjectively. If there is an available administrator that can do that, regardless of their decision for or against, great, otherwise leave it the way it is. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have edited warred, persistently edited to promote a political point of view, made unreasonable attacks on another editor, wasted other editors' time with absurd accusations, persistently been uncivil and shown an "accusatory and adversarial tone" to anyone you disagree with (Now who is that a quotation from? What was that about pots and kettles?), removed another editor's talk page posts to hide what they were saying, and so on. After all that, you post a long rambling unblock request which, instead of addressing the problems with your own behaviour, accuses the blocking administrator of various faults such as acting to support his or her "friends". When, unsurprisingly, that request is declined, you post another unblock request, which, rather than address the problems with your own behaviour, dwells at length on some supposed distinction between "objective" and "subjective" assessment of your editing. Well, you can decide for yourself whether the list of problems I have given is based on "objective" and "subjective" assessment, but if you make another unblock request similar to these two, don't be surprised if your talk page access is removed to prevent you from wasting further administrators' time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2015 (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.

Wikipedia rules are best followed in spirit, not in letter. Pettifogging such as this doesn't help your case. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for an objective evaluation, I got back a brain-dump rant. Not quite what I wanted, but at least the 2nd guy did not copy and paste a pre-prepared template.

However, the things he mentioned, the way he mentioned them and the other things he left out, his tone, and his reasoning show that he did not want to make an objective evaluation. He wanted the block to stay in place, so he just defended that point of view.

He also hopes that whoever looks at this in the future will just read his denial and not have time to research the prior materials, and just assume that everything was legit, so I'm going to show some issues with some of his arguments.

"persistently edited to promote a political point of view"

The article that I edited already promotes a political point of view, I was just trying to fix it. Specifically, it accuses a country and a business partially owned from that country of "human rights violations" as if that is an established fact. And these accusations are then used by various psychotics and their supporters to rationalize maiming and murdering innocent people, and to redirect attention from their own atrocities.

"made unreasonable attacks on another editor"

"wasted other editors' time with absurd accusations"

The admins that reviewed my ANI report [6] have acknowledged and admonished the subject for several of the issues I raised in that report regarding the subject's behavior. The subject has also partially admitted to wrong-doing. And once again, yet another admin shows that my block was in retaliation for that ANI report.

"been uncivil and shown an "accusatory and adversarial tone" to anyone you disagree with"

They should give me credit for what I did not say.

"Now who is that a quotation from?"

It was from me and this guy copied and pasted it. I was just being open and honest that I did not appreciate their accusatory and adversarial tone, and neither do I appreciate the accusatory and adversarial tone from this guy. If it was me this is not how I would handle it.

"What was that about pots and kettles?"

This is from the folk expression "pot calling the kettle black". He's trying to say that it was actually me who engaged in the bad behavior I reported in my ANI report regarding the subject, and that the subject was actually innocent.

"removed another editor's talk page posts to hide what they were saying"

I removed their talk page posts because they were "Using another user's talk page to engage with me", which is the same reason they used earlier to remove my talk page comments [7] to hide what I was saying. This guy is silent on that.

"After all that, you post a long rambling unblock request"

My original unblock requests were neatly separated into paragraphs, each for a separate concept, but I noticed that every time they were reviewed the text always got compressed together, as if to make them harder to read. [8] [9]

I would not be surprised that if somebody told this guy that he's rambling he'd vehemently deny it.

"accuses the blocking administrator of various faults such as acting to support his or her "friends"."

I was aware that being that direct could cause other admins who were more rational nevertheless be afraid to unblock me even if they wanted to, out of fear of reprisals from the blocking admins and / or other admins who would not like to be talked of in that way. But nevertheless, the blocking admin had to be, and deserved to be, called out for their irrational judgement, that made it look to an outside observer that they were doing mental gymnastics to justify that block, as if it was a favor they really wanted to do for somebody.

"unsurprisingly, that request is declined"

"if you make another unblock request similar to these two, don't be surprised if your talk page access is removed"

Even though I did make formal appeals to show that the block was wrong and undeserved, getting unblocked was not really my primary objective. What I really wanted was to show is that a number of these current Wikipedia admins, especially those involved with blocks, are subjective, irrational, and generally nasty. If they had this admin power legitimately because they had the necessary skills to be admins, then they would not have played into my hands so easily. They do not deserve this power and should not have it, because they are doing damage with it.

And it's not just about these admin users involved in my block. The fact that anybody can get so arbitrarily blocked, and that the blocking admins can send such nasty communications, shows that there is a general lack of leadership at the very top of Wikipedia.

Blocking should not be as easy as writing a short summary note with some generic catch-all category. It should require filling out a detailed form with a specific reason for the block, and with another required field for an explanation of specifically how that reason applies in that situation. And the validity of that reasoning should then be anonymously evaluated by other users to verify its legitimacy.

There needs to be a better system in place to prevent bias from influencing decision-making. That is, the Wikipedia rules need to be followed to the letter, and not according to some random user's personal interpretation of what the "spirit" should be. Otherwise the systems originally intended for addressing vandalism will continue to be exploited to silence opposing viewpoints and to promote political points of view. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Sabra (company) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

My edit to that talk page [10] was for a discussion related to improving the article and was within the talk page guidelines. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Rhoark (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP address change of ownership

AS OF NOVEMBER 7th 2015 UTC I WILL NO LONGER BE ACCESSING THE INTERNET FROM THIS IP ADDRESS. ANY FUTURE EDITS FROM THIS IP ON THAT DATE OR AFTER WILL NOT BE FROM ME.

I made the notice above bold and red so that it would likely get noticed in case other people edit from this IP, so that my edits would not be attributed to them and their edits would not be attributed to me.

However, if this present problem with the systematic bias and the admins giving tacit approval for the "special" users to harass regular users continues, I would be surprised if there will be any future edits from this IP. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.