User talk:AtypicalPhantom

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for frequent ECR violations, WP:NOTAFORUM violations, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2023 (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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

If you would like to be unblocked please follow the instructions for appealing in the block notice above. I will not consider unblock requests via email. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unban request

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).

AtypicalPhantom (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. Hello. It seems I have been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia because of my conduct in the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I am not sure what got me banned specifically, but I would like some transparency if possible. I don't make inflammatory comments, and my last comment was to 0300 objective. I was merely adding context to his comment which in of itself was pretty inflammatory. I see multiple users on that talk page, specifically 0300 objective, who are openly pushing their agenda rather harshly, and I obviously have a pro-Israel lean, but I am respectful with my comments. Having a nuanced discussion is integral to Wikipedia. My comment was to shed light on what was a misunderstanding. With that said, if anything I have said is overtly disallowed, I accept that, and I apologize. I can still contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia and I can exclude myself from the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I would like for the adjudicators to reevaluate my ban. If you come to the same conclusion after reevaluating my activity, you can ban me from discussing this topic, but at least grant me the opportunity to contribute to other articles.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, at WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2023 (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.

AtypicalPhantom (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like this appeal at WP:AN or WP:AE? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE AtypicalPhantom (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AtypicalPhantom is open. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is possible to reply to the admin, I want to say that it isn't true that I am not here to create an encyclopedia. My account is recent, but it predates 10/7. I have niche interests and I had a plan to create several new scientific articles. It's just that the recent conflict sucked up most of my time. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copied over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to use "The Great Mule of Eupatoria" as an example. This user has said things more inflammatory than anything I have ever said. He is much more partisan and active on this conflict. His sanction only resulted in a mere 2 week suspension. Also, you can take a look at Objective3000's history on the conflict. I wouldn't call him an unbiased commentator on my situation. I was mistaken in believing my replies to him are why I am suspended. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTTHEM, and if after reading it you'd still like me to copy that over, I will. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the comment. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So thats it? I make two questionable comments and I am permenantly banned frome editing wikipedia entirely? This seems fair to you even though HJ Mitchell said he would be fine with an unblock and a topic ban and most people agreed with that consensus. Others who have made far more egregious statements than me mulitple times have gotten off on a 2 week ban but this is what I get? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in the topics and articles you would edit if unblocked, and what type of edits you are looking to make. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I am a trained researcher with a particular interest in infectious diseases. One of the things I wanted to work on was integrating a wide range of microbes that are uncharacterized here on wikipedia. I have a data base, but I will also be drawing from themicrobedirectory.com, an on-going project to characterize every known microbe, no matter how obscure. There are also many articles on apicomplexan species that can be cleaned up. Many new molecular biology techniques have been introduced that have no article. In-fusion cloning is a good example, but there are many more that require articles. I have also self-studied the history of east africa and parts of classical antiquity, so I can contribute to various articles in those domains. Finally, I have a personal interest in futurology, and I think a few articles there can be cleaned up. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any update? Sorry if you are busy. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can read my reply? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about missing this. I have too much on my watchlist, so some stuff slips through the cracks. In the future you can WP:PING users (I normally use {{u|Username}}) to send a notification.

I'm willing to unblock you under the conditions that you stay clear of anything related to the Palestine/Israel conflict very broadly construed, including making edit requests on the talk pages of related articles. That includes edits like this one. Once you reach 500 edits you can reach out to me, or at WP:AE to appeal the topic ban.

Do you find that agreeable? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Thanks AtypicalPhantom (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish) AtypicalPhantom (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you, and you are now subject to a very broadly construed topic ban. You should stay away from anything even tangentially connected to the conflict. That means no edit requests, no comments, no edits even slightly related to the conflict. A violation of this topic ban will be met with the restoration of your indefinite block. Stick to the topics you mentioned and you should be fine. If you have any questions or need any assistance feel free to reach out to me. Happy editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request at WP:ARCA: EC protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war

Hello AtypicalPhantom,

There is currently a clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Clarification request: EC protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war regarding the recent AE decision to protect the page Talk:2023 Israel-Hamas war.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, very broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned as a condition for your unblock.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Part of your unbanning process was that you agreed to focus your edits on biology- and futurology-type topics. Arguing about political conspiracy theories isn't that.

ScottishFinnishRadish, just want to make sure you're aware that they are not following the terms of their unbanning.

Therealteal (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading over this talk page and was wondering if edits around George Soros are considered to be part of the Arab/Israeli area, broadly construed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

ScottishFinnishRadish I never once spoke about the Israeli-Arab conflict since my ban. Why did you permenantly block me? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things I wanted to work on was integrating a wide range of microbes that are uncharacterized here on wikipedia. I have a data base, but I will also be drawing from themicrobedirectory.com, an on-going project to characterize every known microbe, no matter how obscure. There are also many articles on apicomplexan species that can be cleaned up. Many new molecular biology techniques have been introduced that have no article. In-fusion cloning is a good example, but there are many more that require articles. I have also self-studied the history of east africa and parts of classical antiquity, so I can contribute to various articles in those domains. Finally, I have a personal interest in futurology, and I think a few articles there can be cleaned up.

Not doing any of that and instead hopping in and disruptively editing another contentious article is a clear demonstration that you're not here to constructively contribute.

Furthermore, George Soros contains During an award ceremony for Imre Kertész, Soros said that the victims of violence and abuse were becoming "perpetrators of violence", suggesting that this model explained Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians, which led to walkouts and Soros being booed. I made it clear that your topic ban was very broadly construed, and said Stick to the topics you mentioned and you should be fine. You made no edits to the topics you mentioned, disruptively edited, and violated your very broadly construed topic ban, so here we are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadishScottish, my unblock was officially contingent on me avoiding Arab-Israeli conflict or anything broadly related. You aren't being accurate with your criticism here. I was talking about Soros funding Alvin Bragg who is after Trump for a business related matters. That was the content of our conversation on that page. Not once did I mention anything regarding his views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. If I edit the page of a famous scientist (by perhaps adding a new publication), would you block me if the scientist has views on the Arab-Isaraeli conflict? This is what you are doing here. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have blocked you for your behavior on that talk page anyway. The fact that your unblock was based on what you said you would edit, and that you would stay away from anything even tangentially connected to the conflict. If there was an article about a scientist that has expressed a noteworthy opinion on the conflict, yes, that would also fall under very broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The worst thing I did on that talk page is I called someone daft. I am suprised that you don't see the ridiculousness of affirming the analogy I made. Even if I made an edit of a famous scientist that was completely related to science, but the scientist had views ln the conflict (even if just a sentence on the persons stance on the conflict) which I was unaware of, you would ban me. I guess I would have to emulate nableezy in order to violate rules multiple times and get off lightly. Your definition of "very broadly" construed is very overreaching. My unblock was based on avoiding the arab-israeli conflict, not contributing to those topics. That was the official reason. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing from contentious topic to contentious topic, removing things you don't like from articles without discussion, and demanding that people who challenge your edits absent themselves from a topic, after having been unblocked on very narrow behavioral restrictions after a commitment to observe them, is enough for the block to be revoked. Acroterion (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that talking about contentious topic is disincentivized? Why should you be able to engage in contentious topics and I can't? Matter of fact, what authority do you have to suggest abything on my block ruling? You are not relevant to that at all. My initial block was already highly dubious given multiple actors engaging in far more egregious activity (don't care about the no comparisons rule on wikipedia, it is important to point out double standards). I demanded somebody who has a clear history of being incredibly bias on a subject to remove themselves from a conversation. How are you adding that to the list of reasons I should remain blocked? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were topic-banned, and you ignored the very specific terms under which the topic ban was lifted. Acroterion (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. Can you get the fuck off my page? I already explained how I didn't involve myself in the topic. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]