User talk:BarelyEphemeral

ARBPIA3

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee has restricted editors with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure from editing in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. You can read about this here. Your recent edits fall under that decision. Please edit in other topics on Wikipedia to gain an understanding of our content policies until you reach the requirements for editing in the Arab-Israeli topic area. Thank you, nableezy - 03:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nableezy (talk · contribs)Thanks for the Welcome. I did see the restriction on the pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and for that reason didn't edit the page's content. I thought that a simple request for a 'citation needed' would be acceptable as this would then allow others with the requisite number of page edits under their belt to make the proposed changes. Is that something that Wikipedia can handle if done responsibly? BarelyEphemeral - 08:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, its a bit wider than that. Technically no edits related to the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, though there has been some latitude in enforcing this on talk pages. The requests for citations at Borders of Israel falls under that, but so do edits like this and this. That may strike you as unreasonably wide, but the topic area is defined broadly, and edits related to the topic fall under the restriction. The idea is that editing in other topic areas can both reduce disruption in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area and help new editors gain some experience with Wikipedia's content policies before they participate in one of the more heated areas of the website. I didnt remove your requests for citations, but somebody might, and in that case you shouldnt restore them. Same for the other edits on British groups and there views and actions related to Zionism. You can try asking on the talk page for people to add the citations but that technically is also disallowed, though whether that technicality becomes a reality depends on who comes across it. If you want the safest course of action it would be to leave the topic area completely alone until you reach 500 edits in other topic areas and read the content policies here, specifically WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. There are other things to look at, but thats a decent start. Thanks, nableezy - 16:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nableezy (talk · contribs)Thanks again for the reply. I'd definitely appreciate your input on the articles involving 'British groups and their views and actions related to Zionism', specifically on what I am beginning to see as a concerted effort by a known few individuals who are (arguably but quite clearly!) of a 'pro-Zionist/pro-Israeli hard-line political persuasion' - they are doing their utmost to remove ANY trace of the word itself or reference to Zionism on these British organisations wiki articles which is bazaar as these organisations state their endorsement of Zionism on their organisations home page. These include organisations such as: Jewish Leadership Council, Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, The Jewish Chronicle and United Synagogue. Would you be able to help me understand their justification for editing in this manner and if it is allowed? All of the sources and citations they are removing are independently verifiable scholarly sources - that should be fine, right?BarelyEphemeral - 17:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not really matter, the point here was that you may not edit in this topic area until you reach 500 edits. Regardless of how wrong you think others are. Finally, when signing your posts you dont have to copy my signature, just at the end of the comment type four tildes, as in ~~~~ nableezy - 19:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nableezy (talk · contribs)I understand about the pages that are restricted to 500 posts - all clear. What I was asking though was about those pages that are not restricted and are articles about small but important organisations that are vocally and publicly Zionist in their politics and action: if they state their desire to be Zionist on their homepage why are wikieditors removing this reference with excuses such as 'This is a pro-Israel political organization. We can take it as read that it's Zionist.'? Surely that isn't allowed on Wikipedia - can you take a look? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Synagogue&action=history And got it, four tilde, thanks :) BarelyEphemeral (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I dont really care enough to look through that. I was just here to let you know that your edits fall under the restriction. And my advice to you is to edit in other topic areas that are completely removed from the Israeli-Palestine conflict topic and gain some experience there. Then feel free to return to this topic. nableezy - 22:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Internetwikier (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:46, 7 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no association with the user 'internetwikier' other than to have stumbled across his sources and arguments while on Wikipedia. Personally I do not seeing any merit behind the reasoning 'internetwikiers blocking from Wikipedia - the references they used seemed legitimate and checked out as being accurate. In a similar vein I do not understand why having sympathy with their views results in me being banned - the main objection being that I have highlighted the Zionist nature of an organization that promotes Zionism on its website - hardly controversial. I have edited other articles outside of the 'Israel-Palestine' arena and wish to continue to do so. A block seems wholly inappropriate when no 'sock puppetry' has been committed. I repeat, I am not 'internetwikier' but do believe that they made some interesting contributions from a viewpoint that is not represented here. It is fairly clear that on Wikipedia, especially in these pages, that holding any view on Palestine/Israel that doesn't concur 100% with the predominant and stereotypical ideological mainstream of U.S, male, white, christian Zionist, themselves a product of a U.S / North American teaching system that is hyper sensitive to Israeli propaganda, results in an automatic ban. For those that believe that this is sour grapes why not ask yourselves where this taboo around using the word 'Zionist' on wiki articles relating to Zionist organizations comes from. It's not logical to me why this is a sensitive issue. The simple fact is that many British Zionist / Jewish organizations need balance on their wiki articles and none of the previous contributors have done so, despite assuring internetwikier that they would (as the historical talk pages makes clear). That I chose to do it and the resulting ban should tell you that something is not right with the prevailing narrative held by US contributors on English articles. BarelyEphemeral (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are numerous similarities in the editing of your two accounts, including some which really would be most unlikely to appear with two different editors. The claim that this account is unconnected to your other one is totally implausible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

WikiAdmins for WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles are being notified of this request for unblock as I believe I am a victim of Pro-Israeli POV pushing resulting in unfair banning from Wikipedia @Polargeo 3: @VsevolodKrolikov: @Goldstone: @Gingervlad: @ElComandanteChe: @Sean.hoyland: @Epeefleche: @George: @Sol: @RolandR: @Epeefleche: @RolandR: @Nsaum75: @Noisetier: Blocking my account is not productive and is purely politically motivated. I have chosen - at an interval of over 12 months - to revive a legitimate case for a more balanced and informative documenting of the organisations listed below - a point that was once made by user 'internetwikier'. I am not that person, but I have indeed decided to take up their cause. This is not a blocking offence.

In relation to the wiki pages of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_Israel_Communications_and_Research_Centre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_Israel_Communications_and_Research_Centre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Synagogue you, as editors of Wikipedia, are failing to uphold an impartial and balanced viewpoint when it comes to reflecting the published facts around these organisation affiliation to Zionism and pro-Israeli political positions. The subsequent page reverts since my block have sanitised the articles of ALL mention of ZIONISM which is something that these organisations profess an affinity for on THEIR VERY OWN INSTITUTIONS WEBSITES.

Published, reputable sources such as "Jewish Chronicle (January 9, 1880) quoted in Catherine Delmas et al., Science and Empire in the Nineteenth Century: A Journey of Imperial Conquest and Scientific Progress, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010, p.195" are removed, and no justification is given.

Referencing the Zionist viewpoints of these institutions should not be controversial and is freely admitted on these institutions own websites. Why is any mention of Zionism being 'reverted' and removed from Wikipedia articles that relate to these organisation?

I put it to any editors not affiliated with Zionism that there is a very overt agenda here to avoid perceived connection or affiliation of these organisations with Zionism because of the growing realisation that Zionism is problematic and creates a negative impressions of these bodies due to Israel's human rights record vis-a-vis the killing of Palestinian children/women and civilians.

BarelyEphemeral (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts; you will need to address this, and only this, in any future unblock requests. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:26, 16 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

--jpgordon With respect, I have addressed this. I have stated, clearly and categorically, that I am not InternetWikier but that I have some sympathy with his/her point of view. I have actively decided to look at the articles they have edited and suppliment them with sources taken from the institutions own webistes. How am I to prove I am not someone? that is impossible.

I have highlighted why I believe I am being blocked in my request for unblock above. This is a POV agenda from the page admins who are few in number and have a pro Israel stance. Wikipedia is not immune from Admins pusing POV , especialy on highly controversial topics. Why should this time be any different?

I've had time to investigate this and it seems I'm not alone in being targeted by Pro-Israel WikiAdmins: http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/zionist-conspiracy-to-wreck-wikipedia.html

This needs an admin who is not involved here - @Polargeo 3: @VsevolodKrolikov: @Goldstone: @Gingervlad: @ElComandanteChe: @Sean.hoyland: @Epeefleche: @George: @Sol: @RolandR: @Epeefleche: @RolandR: @Nsaum75: @Noisetier: - to see the blatant attempts at blocking because of POV agendas.

It's very simple. Wiki admins here are stopping an organisations' own website from being used on a wiki article about the organisation itelf. this is highly irregular. BarelyEphemeral (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the CheckUser note below. Appeal your block on your original account. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:36, 20 November 2016 (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.

Checkuser note:. BarelyEphemeral is Confirmed to BuildingConsensus (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to be clear here, I have no idea who this person is or why they thought I was an admin. I didn't even see the ping until today.Gingervlad (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]