User talk:פֿינצטערניש

Welcome

Hello, Finsternish, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

January 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Milo Yiannopoulos. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly recent news has vindicated my edit, but I appreciate your concern for the integrity of Wikipedia. Finsternish (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is coming up again in administration enforcement, the living person in question has since been confirmed to be a Nazi, so my edit was simply an attempt to accurately categorize a Nazi as a Nazi, since most people already could deduce that he was a Nazi without such an investigation. Others subsequently reverted it and I did not push the issue, though I absolutely believe it is false balance to even give the slightest bit of credence to the possibility that the individual in question is not a Nazi.

A similar thing is true for the categorization of Israel as a theocracy. Israel arrests non-Orthodox rabbis for performing weddings. Israel strictly restricts who is allowed to marry whom, based on a religious restriction against intermarriage. All of this is based on the opinions of the two Chief Rabbis of Israel. Of course it's a theocracy. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I somehow neglected to add that Israel also restricts gay people from marriage for religious reasons. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, again, this was a good faith edit, and it was reverted, and I did not push it. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extremely dogmatic and hard-line pro-Israel way you have replied to my suggestion that a serious violation of a Palestinian poet's human rights be added to an article that most people are prohibited from editing, it gives me no comfort whatsoever as to the partiality or impartiality of such sanctions that you are the one leaving me this message. Finsternish (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message merely notifies you of the sanctions regime in place - nothing less, nothing more.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I thought you were banned from Wikipedia. Why are you still editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrokenTelly (talk • contribs)

Spambot? פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA3 General prohibition

In regards to edits to Dareen Tatour, please note that accounts that are not extended confirmed (30 days tenure, 500 edits), are not permitted to edit conflict related pages per this decision.Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you're totally not abusing the power conferred upon you by that decision at all! Good job! פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor, same as you, with no "power" to abuse. However, I may report breaches of the ARBPIA DS regime to the appropriate forum.Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right to edit the page as per the decision; I apparently don't, so yes, you do. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that you went and removed everything that contradicted your POV, re-added a redundancy that served no purpose apart from POV, and edited the article to look even more favorable to Israel by removing all mention of the decision's condemnation from the lead. You are abusing the power you have as an extended confirmed editor, and threatening to report me for editing the article if I don't comply with your attempt to shape the article in a way that is favorable to Israel. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering all of this you're making it very hard for me to assume good faith. I don't think you have Wikipedia in mind; I think you have Israel in mind. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the thing is, this is not a place for you to do hasbara, and certainly not a place for you to strong-arm others away from contributing to articles where you're trying to make Israel look good. This is an encyclopedia. Go spread propaganda on a site that is not intended to be a factual encyclopedia, and let people with good intentions be faithful to the facts in peace. Or don't; go report me to the proper forum or whatever. I contribute a lot to Wiktionary, I contribute a lot to the Esperanto Wikipedia, and I'm happy to find something better to do with my time. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's entirely possible you're being paid for this, because I know not every IDF soldier is physically fit enough to go toe-to-toe with Palestinian babies. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement where a report against you has been filed.Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 violation, see AE thread, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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. Sandstein 08:41, 5 August 2018 (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."

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction 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 procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 08:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your appeal below and will not be lifting the ban. In your appeal, you are mostly blaming the other user for what you consider their inappropriate conduct. This is inappropriate in an appeal; see, by analogy, WP:NOTTHEM. You do not address your own conduct by which you accuse the other user, multiple times and without evidence, of being a paid agent of the state of Israel and of spreading propaganda for that state. Wikipedians are expected to assume good faith towards one another, and to resolve disagreements about article content by discussing the merits of the content, not by attacking one another personally and casting aspersions against the other and their motives. See, generally, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSIONS. Because you do not understand and abide by these basic conduct requirements, I believe that you should not be editing controversial topics for the time being. If you want to maintain your appeal, you will need to ask another user to copy it to the forum you choose to submit your appeal to. Sandstein 10:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, wait until the block expires and then post the appeal yourself, as otherwise you will not be able to contribute to the discussion about the appeal. Sandstein 10:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expect you to lift the ban; this is why I am appealing your decision to other administrators. If I need to wait to be unblocked for that, fine.

You just asserted, without evidence, that I "accuse the other user, multiple times and without evidence, of being a paid agent of the state of Israel." This is an exaggeration. I did not accuse them; I merely suggested the possibility. And I only suggested the possibility once, not multiple times. As for spreading propaganda, I did have evidence, and that is exactly what my appeal was addressing.

And your response is laughable in the sense that my appeal directly gives my reasons for believing that the other user is acting in bad faith, and you somehow manage to split this into "you blame the other user" and "you have no reason to believing they're acting in bad faith." So your response is full of obvious cognitive dissonance. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC) It obviously doesn't address my appeal at all; it merely splits it into two things that you are better able to address independently, which together defeat your entire reason for rejecting my appeal. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the appeal on the noticeboard: my reason for being banned is directly related to interactions with a specific editor. That's why I gave background. It's absurd to block anyone for editing a page that you could've protected. The arbitration guidelines only allow you to apply such punishments when the alternative is not feasible.

I am willing to apologize for assuming bad faith and for personal attacks, but there is no basis for banning me for editing a page. I have over 3000 global contributions, for one, and secondly, it was feasible to protect the page. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I am even OK with being sanctioned for personal attacks and bad faith, but there is zero basis in policy for banning me for editing a page when protecting it would have been feasible, @Sandstein:, @Fish and karate:. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Informing me of the guidelines" is not an appropriate way to enforce the policy when asking it to be protected is feasible. It also leaves room for prejudice. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are clear: "This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." Why was it not feasible to use extended confirmed protection? The reason it is preferably enforced this way, I imagine, is to avoid prejudice. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

פֿינצטערניש (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. My reason for appealing is that this specific punishment for violation of these arbitration sanctions was applied with prejudice. The non-prejudiced way of enforcing this arbitration decision is to protect the page, not to sanction specific users. The sanctioning of specific users leaves open the ability for editors to pick and choose who is allowed to edit pages on their pet topics. Initially, on the talk page for Human Rights in Israel - a page that, unlike the one on Dareen Tatour, is protected against me editing it - I asked that a paragraph on Dareen Tatour be added to the article, and @Icewhiz: responded by specifically trying to make the discussion political rather than one about the Israeli government's condemnation at the hands of human rights organizations such as PEN International with a long history of condemning injustice everywhere, not just Israel. After this, I edited a page on Dareen Tatour, and Icewhiz informed me that I was in violation of discretionary sanctions that could just as easily have been applied through the normal method, protection of the page. Since Icewhiz was not an administrator, they simply could have asked an administrator to protect the page, as I am positive they are fully knowledgable of how to do. Are they a bumbler with no conception of how Wikipedia works? Of course not; they know policy inside and out, so they were specifically choosing to use it as a weapon against specific people. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC) פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I choose to decline to do so as, in my opinion, there's no meaningful chance this appeal would be successful. You are free to appeal your topic ban once your block expires. You are also free to post another unblock request, though I strongly urge you to substantially rewrite and refocus your appeal. WP:GAB can help there. Yamla (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2018 (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.

Talk page access removed

As you are using your talk page to circumvent your topic ban (most recently - [1]), I have removed your editing access to your talk page for the duration of your block. You can appeal this via UTRS. Fish+Karate 12:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Madam/Sir, Please sorry for calling on your attention to help me resolve on an issue concerning an Article i have created as John Vinzelts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and was looking for an Arbitary Member to help me resolve it. I'm currently teaching my young daughter how to edit wikipedia articles, unfortunately on the same laptop. I have been charge now for Sockpuppet and with deletion Tags on my article please could you help? (Professorat (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)).[reply]

Result of your arbitration enforcement appeal

This is to inform you that I have closed your arbitration enforcement appeal as declining to lift your topic ban. This has been logged at the arbitration enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arb appeal enforcement declined

I have declined and closed your appeal and logged it here. --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. regentspark (comment) 14:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot allege a long term agenda bias on any other user (like you did [WP:AE]] (here without providing proper evidence in the form of diffs. --regentspark (comment) 14:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"John Crapper" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John Crapper. Since you had some involvement with the John Crapper redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD at Eli Valley

Please respect WP:BRD at Eli Valley. You added the material, it was objected to (and reverted), now take it to the article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violatiof of TBAN

Hi Could you please revert you edit at [2] as you were topic banned from I/P conflict --Shrike (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does Stern's collaboration with Nazi Germany have to do with the I/P conflict? פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article has to do with I/P conflict.He was Zionist leader so his collaboration or not collaboration has a direct connection to the conflict.Please revert --Shrike (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation

Voting is closed for that discussion. You can't add any comments. — hako9 (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]