User talk:Ghostlystatic

April 2023

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Nosferattus. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop, but I think his actions were done unilaterally without buy-in from anyone else. Removing significant content on a useful page is extremely annoying. Ghostlystatic (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel wasn't a pogrom

Alphatiger9 did. All I did was change the number of kidnapped Israelis to 199. I actually agree with you that the terrorist attack on October 7 was a pogrom. Foxhound45 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's my bad. I'm sorry. Ghostlystatic (talk) Ghostlystatic (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hi Ghostlystatic! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Andre🚐 23:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did talk to them any they do not listen to reason. I will certainly get the dispute people involved. This meets the definition. I know what a pogrom is as a Jewish person. Ghostlystatic (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an NPOV dispute here so you are aware @Andrevan. Ghostlystatic (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have clarified... please read the below...

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.

Andre🚐 00:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note you I believe cannot start a new noticeboard discussion ... please see the current discussion at WP:ARCA (this is pretty inside baseball stuff, so feel free to skip) But, please pump the brakes on your edits. You are too new and should slow down for right now. Andre🚐 00:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but I will note that I have read this website for several years now. It's stuff like this that makes me hate working with your website. It's very disrespectful to anyone who doesn't spend all day editing.

I really don't see how I can't make an arbitration notice about this, since again I did what you said. Ghostlystatic (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I am also Jewish and I agree it was a pogrom. But we have to wait until reliable sources describe it that way before Wikipedia can. You are free to edit though. But note that for this topic, you cannot, until you have more edits. Andre🚐 00:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I hate most of the editors on this website. Anything to scream about the Jews. They'll find any excuse. Ghostlystatic (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Andrevan said, you can't participate in "internal project discussions" related to the Arab-Israeli conflict until you have accumulated 500 edits. You are still welcome to comment on article talk pages. You can read more about the restriction at WP:ARBECR and more about what led to it at WP:ARBPIA4. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Can you please bring the topic up on my behalf then? I will follow this byzantine system but I would please appreciate it if an expert can look into this. I'm sure I'm not the only Jewish person who views that event as a pogrom. Ghostlystatic (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't, but Andrevan or another talk page watcher can if they'd like to. You might also post such a request at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks a lot buddy. This is why I hate this website. Have A Good Summer. Ghostlystatic (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for ECR violations, incivility, and WP:NOTHERE, 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) 02:21, 28 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 wish to appeal please follow the instructions in the block notice. I will not consider appeals by email. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Don't include that in your little form then, since otherwise people will think that's okay to do. Ghostlystatic (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1182258833 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unban request

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ghostlystatic

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: ghostlystatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ghostlystatic (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: General ban

Administrator imposing the sanction: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by ghostlystatic

test

 I am a Jewish person and I said some uncivil things to people who I believed wanted to hide the 10/07 attacks from the Pogrom page because they wanted to downplay what happened. I didn't mean to be uncivil, but I can only play the NPOV game for so long, especially when there are some editors on here that complain that they openly can't support Palestinian terrorist groups.  Kind of biased and NPOV as it is. I like this encyclopedia. If you decide to ban me, I won't stop liking it.

Statement by scottishfinnishradish

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ghostlystatic

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by ghostlystatic

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Ghostlystatic (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]