User talk:Jrarxese

June 2024

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Karantina massacre. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events that unfolded at Karantina were a result of the presence of armed militants in the camp prior to the massacre. https://civilsociety-centre.org/sir/attack-maslakh-karantina-camp

Civilians were caught in the crossfire,as happens with virtually all neutralisation events of large targets,but to call this as an act of pure anti-palestinian violence done on innocent civilians is bias and not a neutral point of view.

Many such camps and sectors held armed fighters,including the areas of Maslakh,Tel El Zaatar,Jisr el Basha,Dbaye amongst others that were,at about the same time,being besieged and engaged in combat with and by Christian Forces https://www.palestineremembered.com/GeoPoints/Tall_al_Za_atr_R_C___Destroyed_2679/Article_18847.html

Simply putting a correction on the motive of the attack in the infobox can make all the difference.Edits to indulge bias views on other wikis on Lebanese Civil War wikis is becoming an issue,listing christians as antagonists and renaming military operations as "crimes" (example,siege of tel el zaatar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_al-Zaatar_massacre,which instead of making a seperate wiki relating to the ACTUAL massacre that took place during ONE day (12/1/76) of the siege,simply got renamed to a massacre despite being a 7 month long assault with tank divisions and aerial assault.You need to look further towards edits that indulge actual bias views towards historical events that more or so simply place Christians in a bad light in. Jrarxese (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the earlier ban

Hello Daniel.

I apologize that I had no prior knowledge of the earlier ban,nor did I really check it or at the very least remember checking.I did not make this account as an intentional attempt at evading the ban,for I don't frequently edit Wikipedia pages nor do I have a clue why I was banned the firs time. I would like to know the reason surrounding my earlier ban that I wasn't able to ask 2 months ago because of my absence of knowledge in that manner Jrarxese (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Creation of the Second Account

I figured I had accidentally logged out of my blocked Jrarxese account,I had tried to log back in to have accidentally misspelled the name of my account by missing a final e and thus unintentionally creating a new account on 7/12/2024 Jrarxes.Daniel Case I have not created that account under any sort of second sockpuppetry act intended as a voilation of Wikipedia rules.I have signed out of it and I seem to find it impossible to delete the account I made only 2 hours ago Jrarxese (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Ban is Overdue

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

due to a misunderstanding on my behalf (having no knowledge of the fact that my 203.30.15.82 account was banned for unexplained reasons in 6/4/24 due to Wikipedia signing me off of it,leading me to commit unintentional socketpuppetry without noticing or being aware of my actions) my block was extended from 3 months to 6 months (as said by Daniel Case on 18/06/24 by adding three extra months to the blocl) meaning that the block should have been lifted on the 6th of October (which is a week and a half ago) but that has not been the case.Aside from a sign in typo that made an unintentional account (Jrarxes,of which I explained in my talk page about being an accident) I have abided by the block rule and haven't committed any further offensive to Wikipedia's terms.I request my block be lifted on the basis of the block duration expiring directly as stated by Daniel Case three months ago.Thank you

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=due to a misunderstanding on my behalf (having no knowledge of the fact that my [[User:203.30.15.82|203.30.15.82]] account was banned for unexplained reasons in 6/4/24 due to Wikipedia signing me off of it,leading me to commit unintentional socketpuppetry without noticing or being aware of my actions) my block was extended from 3 months to 6 months (as said by [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] on 18/06/24 by adding three extra months to the blocl) meaning that the block should have been lifted on the 6th of October (which is a week and a half ago) but that has not been the case.Aside from a sign in typo that made an unintentional account ([[User:Jrarxes|Jrarxes]],of which I explained in my talk page about being an accident) I have abided by the block rule and haven't committed any further offensive to Wikipedia's terms.I request my block be lifted on the basis of the block duration expiring directly as stated by [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] three months ago.Thank you |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=due to a misunderstanding on my behalf (having no knowledge of the fact that my [[User:203.30.15.82|203.30.15.82]] account was banned for unexplained reasons in 6/4/24 due to Wikipedia signing me off of it,leading me to commit unintentional socketpuppetry without noticing or being aware of my actions) my block was extended from 3 months to 6 months (as said by [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] on 18/06/24 by adding three extra months to the blocl) meaning that the block should have been lifted on the 6th of October (which is a week and a half ago) but that has not been the case.Aside from a sign in typo that made an unintentional account ([[User:Jrarxes|Jrarxes]],of which I explained in my talk page about being an accident) I have abided by the block rule and haven't committed any further offensive to Wikipedia's terms.I request my block be lifted on the basis of the block duration expiring directly as stated by [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] three months ago.Thank you |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=due to a misunderstanding on my behalf (having no knowledge of the fact that my [[User:203.30.15.82|203.30.15.82]] account was banned for unexplained reasons in 6/4/24 due to Wikipedia signing me off of it,leading me to commit unintentional socketpuppetry without noticing or being aware of my actions) my block was extended from 3 months to 6 months (as said by [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] on 18/06/24 by adding three extra months to the blocl) meaning that the block should have been lifted on the 6th of October (which is a week and a half ago) but that has not been the case.Aside from a sign in typo that made an unintentional account ([[User:Jrarxes|Jrarxes]],of which I explained in my talk page about being an accident) I have abided by the block rule and haven't committed any further offensive to Wikipedia's terms.I request my block be lifted on the basis of the block duration expiring directly as stated by [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] three months ago.Thank you |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Jrarxese (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it, as I should, to another admin to decide whether to unblock, but I would point out that under policy registered accounts associated with sockpuppetry are usually blocked indefinitely while IP addresses never are (although we can, and have, blocked them for years at a time). I see that you are anticipating that you will be asked if you have done any editing in the meantime. That's good on your part, but do expect that per доверяй, но проверяй, you can expect a Checkuser to be done on your account and the IP address as part of this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrarxese, I don't understand this part of the request: my 203.30.15.82 account was banned for unexplained reasons in 6/4/24 due to Wikipedia signing me off of it. That's an IP address, not an account that Wikipedia can sign you on or off of. Can you explain what happened that led to your IP block? -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Hello. I apologize for any confusion regarding my appeal since I am new to Wikipedia editing and I'm not quite familiar with the terms used on this site.

I was an unregistered editor prior to having an account, and I believe the reason I got banned back in the April is due to a case of mistaken identity as it was explained that I was being blocked due to "block evasion" despite the fact that I've never been blocked on this site before. Jrarxese (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the IP you mention in your unblock appeal was blocked because it was identified as the same editor as Special:Contributions/114.76.105.111. Are these your edits? -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them are recognizable. While I was active on Lebanese war Wikipedias, some of the contributions don't add up (like the fact that there's an edit in 2008 or the fact that I haven't written or participated in the Draft of Great Battle of Bnachii nor the editing of the battle of Ain Dara and the 1977 Chouf Massacres). I saw that the editor has been blocked for 31 hours for the first time, and 1 month for the second due to "disruptive editing". Taking away the fact that I haven't heard of such blocks (or the fact that account creation wasn't blocked when it should be, as a new unregistered account had automatically been made), if I really was 114.76.105.111 (hypothetically speaking), getting blocked for "disruptive editing" for correcting vandalized Wikipedia pages has to be considered power abuse, especially as Lebanese Civil War Wikipedias have been vandalized starting March of this year (examples of which are The Hundred Days War and the Siege of Tel El Zaatar)Jrarxese (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case, does this make sense to you? Also, {{checkuser needed}}. -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to relate to old AIV reports; we'd have to look them up. I do agree with you that CU would be helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, CUs can't publicly comment on the relationship between a named account and an IP. Spicy (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy, I wasn't asking for anyone to make a connection between this account and any particular IP. It's my understanding that if an editor has been blocked for block evasion, it's common practice to check if they have been evading their block before unblocking them? -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user is blocked for allegedly evading a block on an IP. If I were to check and state that they have been evading their block, I would be implicitly confirming the connection between the account and the IP. I guess it's possible that they could be evading via a different IP that was not publicly mentioned, but I am not comfortable with the implications. Spicy (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you on one thing, I had no knowledge on any previous blocks whatsoever, it seems unregistered accounts don't receive notifications, and don't seem to stop you from editing (instead making a new unregistered account).I would never purposefully evade blocks if I had known there was a block. And as I said earlier, I would've appealed any earlier blocks had I known they existed. Jrarxese (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]