User talk:VwM.Mwv/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:VwM.Mwv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

VwM.Mwv, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi VwM.Mwv! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification

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.

In addition, as a result of this ruling, all IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. RolandR (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Zucc

Hi VwM.Mmv, I don't disagree that 'Zucc' is a meme for Mark Zuckerberg, but if it is important enough to be listed at Zucc, then it should be mentioned in his article first (WP:DABABBREV). Leschnei (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, VwM.Mwv, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Looks like nobody said hello ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks ;) VwM.Mwv (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you! On talk pages, please indent every entry one to the right to what you respond to. If you have questions, ask right here, I'll watch, unless it's for a specific article, then better on the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

I am required to inform you that only 3 reverts are permitted before administrators may become involved. You are over that limit and I am at it. They'll block you if you continue to revert the article. I've provided you links on the talk page where I pinged you, and will provide them here again, WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources, WP:3RR, WP:PRIMARY, ~ R.T.G 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read the section "Notification" above on this page. There is no doubt that the assassination of Lord Moyne was an aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore you are not permitted to edit their until you have 500 edits. After that time you are welcome to edit there, but 1RR (not 3RR, User:RTG please note) applies. Zero^talk 09:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I did note this with User:VwM.Mwv on another page last night. Indeed, most conflict oriented subjects do fall under the 1RR rule eventually, or else everyone just votes, meaning we only get the info according to who had the most editors on at one time, as well as a lot of fighting on the talk pages. ~ R.T.G 12:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello, I'm شرعب السلام. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Iran, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: As you wish. But it's gonna take up like 10-20 sources for one single sentence. Are you sure you don't prefer the link instead? VwM.Mwv (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Note also that, as a new editor you are additionally restricted. The Arbitration notification posted above refers to the "General Prohibition", which states that "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". Some of your edits to the Talk page stray well beyond constructive comments, and could be considered disruptive even from an edit-confirmed editor. Please restrict your comments to discussion on how to improve the article, not for political debate on the topic itself. RolandR (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@RolandR: I'm sorry, but that was an essential part of the discussion. It's needed to prove the BDS double standards, and by extension, prove their anti-Semitism, which is the topic of the whole discussion. VwM.Mwv (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: the goal of the discussion is not to prove or disprove anything. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether or not the category is consistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Neither question hinges on a question of truth (see WP:TRUE). Protracted discussions of the Israel-Palestine conflict are unhelpful and they make it hard for un-involved editors to participate because they have to wade through a bunch of irrelevant back and forth. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can debate the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but this isn't one of them. Nblund^talk 05:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Fine. Just don't censor my MOST important comment. VwM.Mwv (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Actually, I fixed it by adding a short edit note to my original comment. VwM.Mwv (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification

Please note that I have reported you to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard here. RolandR (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the 30/500 rule regarding Arab-Israeli conflict related pages and calling another editor "anti-Semitic", 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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."

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).

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

Request reason:

@Galobtter: Not really sure how this thing works, so I'll just post my questions/objections here:
1. I'm not aware that the Arab-Israeli conflict-related talk pages are off-limits for new users. Are they?
2. I actually self-reverted during this "edit war" because it was annoying and unconstructive. [1]
3. Can you please explain how calling an anti-Semitie anti-Semitic is a "personal attack" when their remarks clearly fit the definition of anti-Semitism? VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Doubling down on your personal attacks (and calling another user "Anti-Semitic" most definitely counts as a personal attack) isn't exactly helping your case. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

@Yunshui: I am not going to sacrifice recognition of the truth simply for the sake of being unblocked from Wikipedia. I have far too much self-esteem to do such a thing (for better or worse). I'd rather take a break for a week. With that said, I don't plan to repeat my "personal attack" because I belive my point has already been made. VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As noted to you above, "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". Your talk page commentary was clearly not constructive, since it was debating the conflict/BDS rather than discussing the topic in relation to our policies and guidelines. Additionally, you also violated the restriction in your main-space edits to Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne.

To make the above clearer though going forward, see the sanction below. As explained in the notices, both the block and the topic ban would need to be appealed at WP:AE or WP:AN (a regular unblock request does not work). If you want to do so, I or someone else can copy your appeal there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As the recipient of this particular attack,[2] I’d like to thank the administrators for taking action here. I was deeply offended by the attack (“...you admittedly don't recognize the right of the Jewish state to have its own immigration policies. Therefore, you... are anti-Semitic”), despite it being nonsense (no such statement was ever made, not even close, nor does the connection appear to be logical). I hope the editor will consider withdrawing and apologising for his attack. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: So does this mean you don't wish to force Israel to take in millions of Arab immigrants? Or do you wish to also force every country (not just the Jewish one) to take in immigrants according to the same standard? If your answer to both the above questions are "no", I'm afraid won't be able to apologize to you. E pur si muove. VwM.Mwv (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have never shared my personal point of view with you, so that cannot be relevant to my request for an apology. I do find it deeply unsettling that you consider it appropriate to cast aspersions of antisemitism on the basis of support for a basic human right enshrined in multiple international treaties, and that you consider it appropriate to make a statement deeply offensive to millions of Palestinian refugees by referring to them as immigrants. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you will need to be collaborative, which means toning down your rhetoric and assuming good faith. If you cannot do that, your time here will be short. I’d appreciate if you could start by considering again my request for an apology. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I couldn't care less about so-called "international law" (btw, your link only references actual refugees, not their descendants). I care about my own morality, which is based on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and adherence to the non-aggression principle.
Just because some individuals may have been forced to leave an area doesn't mean their descendants have any moral right to invade & destroy the country existing there now. Two wrongs don't make a right. You seem to agree with that in every case (Soviet-US, Poland-Germany, etc.) except the Arab-Israeli conflict. And that's why I called you anti-Semitic. VwM.Mwv (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

When you said Just because some individuals may have been forced to leave an area doesn't mean their descendants have any moral right to invade & destroy the country existing there now. Who were you talking about? Are you talking about the Zionist regime? And why do you think they want to invade while all they want is to return to their homeland not to destroy homes or destroy olive trees or even archeological sites.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Please define "they". All of Israel's enemies have declared their intent to destroy the free Jewish state and replace it with a totalitarian Judenrein Islamic state. Even the supposedly "moderate" Palestinian Authority regularly tortures its own dissidents [3], and has declared its goal to make Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria Judenrein as well [4]. BDS is merely a façade. VwM.Mwv (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@VwM.Mwv: Hi, please note that being blocked from Wikipedia isn't a punishment but an opportunity for you to review Wikipedia's policies and to recognise the mistakes you have made that got you blocked so I would suggest you start doing that. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Your comment sounds good and all, but it's predicated on the idea that I regret the "mistakes" I've supposedly made, which I don't (except maybe for the short "edit-war" that I stopped on my own). VwM.Mwv (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of platforms where you can argue and push your point of views Wikipedia isn't a place for that. Use reliable sources and don't personally attack other editors!--SharabSalam (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Then why do you use it as such? [5] VwM.Mwv (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Can I recommend you have a look at the concept discussed here as I believe this is what you are doing. It is clear that you are convinced that your actions as a new editor are justified (a reminder see Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne and associated talk page) and right. The encyclepodia is a growing entity if you wish to change things, discuss first you never know people might agree with you! Edmund Patrick – confer 08:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Out of fairness to VwM.Mwv a note to say above paragraph was added just after and without the knowledge of the indefinite block. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to tell you that I was trying to help you when I told you that the block isn't a punishment but an opportunity to review Wikipedia's policies. I expected that you are going to reply after 2 days saying that you have read Wikipedia policies and that you now acknowledge your mistakes and that you were new in Wikipedia and that you will never do what you did again.(that would have got you unblocked)

The reason I told you that was 1- I like helping new members in the Wikipedian community because I want the community to expand. 2- I saw your comments above when you called other editor that they are an anti-Semite.

Interestingly enough, your reply was quite the opposite of what I expected; you said my comment sounds nice but it's like implying that you have made mistakes. I wasn't surprised too much from that reply (many/some people would do the same as you). Anyway, your talk page was in my watchlist and I saw your latest comment asking to be unblocked and I wanted to help you again and give you just one advice because I believe you are new and might don't know about this rule: you should not try to evade the ban by making a new account or editing without logging because that would be sock puppetry. read WP:SOCK. regards--SharabSalam (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Obviously, you haven't read this section, where I already did pretty much excactly what you just advised. Still though, thanks. VwM.Mwv (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from editing talk pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict until you are extended-confirmed. This means the exception in the general prohibition on the Arab-Israeli conflict, that: "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." does not apply to you.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons I've given above.

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Block extended

It has become very apparent that you see no issue with making personal attacks against other editors, and will likely continue to do so in the future if other editors disagree with you. It also seems evident that you are not here to create an encyclopedia, but rather to "right great wrongs". You further appear to believe that your own personal opinion trumps Wikipedia policies with regard to content. Based on your comments while blocked, I do not believe that allowing you to continue editing once this block expired is in Wikipedia's best interests, and I have therefore extended it to an indefinite block. If you believe that you would in fact be able to edit productively, you are welcome to appeal, but note that the arbitration sanctions mentioned above will continue to apply even in the event of a successful unblock appeal. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: That may be the case for my edits on my own talk page, but it's certainly not the case elsewhere on Wikipedia. I invite you to take a look at these edits, for example: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I think you will find they are nothing but encyclopedic.
As for the "personal attack", the best I can do is write;
Dear Onceinawhile, I apologize for calling you anti-Semitic without considering the possibility that the views you espoused may have been in reference to your perception of the BDS' stances rather than a reflection of your own personal opinions. After careful deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that I do not know whether or not you are an anti-Semite. Therefore, I rescend my accusation.
Anything else would not be sincere, and so it would feel like a forced apology. I hope that this can be accepted.
Finally, I'd like to say that I intend to stop using any part of Wikipedia to "right great wrongs", as I have come to understand that it's not what this platform is designed for. VwM.Mwv (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: The maximum block for WP:AE is for one year --Shrike (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Amended block reasons to clarify. Incidentally, based on the above statement by VwM.Mwv I am not averse to another admin reducing/lifting the block as they see fit, but would prefer a second opinion rather than doing so myself. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the user should use {{unblock}} template and explain why he should be unblocked reading WP:GAB before of course --Shrike (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shrike: Thanks for the advise. VwM.Mwv (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I've read WP:GAB and I think the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions. Also, the initial one-week block (abitration enforcement) has expired. Further explanations are provided in my latest post, which I'm copy-pasting below here;
That may be the case for my edits on my own talk page, but it's certainly not the case elsewhere on Wikipedia. I invite you to take a look at these edits, for example: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. I think you will find they are nothing but encyclopedic. Edit: other editors have also mentioned the constructiveness of my edits. [26]
As for the personal attack, the best I can do is write;
Dear Onceinawhile, I apologize for calling you "anti-Semitic" without considering the possibility that the views you espoused may have been in reference to your perception of the BDS' stances rather than a reflection of your own personal opinions. After careful deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that I do not know whether or not you are an anti-Semite. Therefore, I rescend my accusation.
Anything else would not be sincere, and so it would feel like a forced apology. I hope that this can be accepted.
Finally, I'd like to say that I intend to stop using any part of Wikipedia to "right great wrongs", as I have come to understand that it's not what this platform is designed for. VwM.Mwv (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am willing to unblock given that this user has agreed to listen to the advice and mentoring of Icewhiz. Be advised that if the behavior that resulted in your block recurs, you may be reblocked. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Can you please lift the block now? It's been several days, and no other administrator has noticed my request. I'd also prefer you be the one do it, since you're the one who extended the block in the first place, and I don't want to "go behind your back" or something like that. VwM.Mwv (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Technically, another admin can't lift the block till 20th February due to my initial 1 week block being arbitration enforcement. However, I'm fine with any another admin lifting the block without consulting me. But personally, I'm not entirely convinced by the block appeal. While you've retracted the specific accusation, the appeal and specifically the the scare-quotes around "personal attack" seem to indicate you don't even understand how calling someone an anti-Semite could even be a personal attack, which does not bode well going forward if you are unblocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

↑ What he said, pretty much to the letter. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter and Yunshui: It's a quote because I was quoting you. That's the only thing it's meant to "indicate" (<---just like this word). (Edit: But if it's really such a big deal, I'll remove the scare-quotes to clarify that I do understand why it was classified as a personal attack, and I've repeatedly apologized for it.)
Why does it have to be another (uninvolved) admin? As I've previously noted, none except you two have even noticed my request. VwM.Mwv (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter and Yunshui: Okay, so it's been more than a week now, and this is still unnoticed by other admins. Can one of you please life the block? VwM.Mwv (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not "unnoticed"; your appeal is listed at CAT:UNBLOCK where any administrator can check it. They may not have chosen to respond to it, but that doesn't mean they haven't seen it. As per my previous message, I for one am not comfortable lifting this block unilaterally and would like another admin's opinion, for the reasons Galobtter outlines above. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: - I am not endorsing VwM.Mwv's comments, but he has said he was wrong and apologized. I want to point you in the direction of - this recent AE case - which involved comments such as these - [27][28][29] "extremely pro-X and anti-Y" towards multiple editors - which closed as no-action at all. Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I'm sorry but I'm not following; what exactly is the point you're trying to make through reference to the Nableezy case? Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: The disparity in in enforcement (indef block vs. no action) for an "anti-X" labeling of other editors. I'll note that VwM.Mwv apologized above, while to my understanding Nableezy has not. In terms of precedent of how these incidents are treated, I believe this is relevant. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point now; thank you for clarifying. Claims of precedent, especially with regards to blocks, are somewhat incongruous on Wikipedia. GoldenRing and TonyBallioni assessed the AE case and established that the existing arbitration sanctions were not pertinent to it. That does not set a precedent establishing that we should ignore personal attacks if they happen to suggest that another user is anti-Semitic (or anti-Palestinian, for that matter). The close of the AE discussion is not comparable with the decision to extend the block (which, to be absolutely clear for the benefit of reviewing admins, is no longer an enforcement block and does not need to be appealed at the AE board). Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: So let me get this straight... I'm blocked indefinitely for personal attacks (which I apologized for) because I was already blocked as arbitration enforcement (which has expired), but other editors will not be blocked at all for similar personal attacks if they were not already blocked as arbitration enforcement?
I understand you wanting to get feedback from other admins, but you have to take at least some personal responsibility, since you're the one who extended the block in the first place! Waiting for this long is unreasonable, and I don't understand how undoing your own block could be considered "unilateral" action. VwM.Mwv (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are blocked for: personal attacks and for editing goals which are incompatible with Wikipedia's purpose. You are not blocked because you were already blocked as an enforcement action. As far as I am concerned, the AE block is irrelevant at this point; my extension of the block was not an enforcement action, and you are not currently blocked under discretionary sanctions (although the extended-confirmed sanction above is still applicable to you). Any administrator is free to review and remove the block if they see fit.

The Nableezy case was closed because it was raised as a request for action under discretionary sanctions, and the reviewing administrators established that those sanctions did not apply. The closing of that case is neither comparable nor pertinent to this block.

I had wanted to avoid having to directly comment on your unblock appeal, but since you and Icewhiz appear determined to force the issue: I read your unblock appeal as deeply insincere, and while I believe that you do indeed understand why you are blocked, my impression is that you still think Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not (or perhaps should not) apply to you. I may be wrong in this interpretation, but since that is my interpretation, I am not comfortable lifting the block. Other administrators may read it differently, and thus in the interests of seeing you get a fair hearing, I leave the decision on whether or not to unblock in their hands. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Your reasoning is deeply, deeply illogical.
I explicitly stated in my appeal that my apology for the personal attack, in its excact form, is "the best I can do" because "Anything else would not be sincere". Then you proceed to accuse me of not being sincere.
As for WP:NOTHERE, I explained & apologized for that, too in great detail, and other editors have also mentioned the constructiveness of my edits.
If you want to recuse yourself from this case, can you at least contact other admins and urge them to look into it? You can't just block me and then say "I want nothing to do with this". VwM.Mwv (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, other admins are already aware of this. However, since you asked: pinging a few admins that I know off the top of my head often deal with unblock appeals: @Yamla: @331dot: @Dlohcierekim: @Boing! said Zebedee: @NinjaRobotPirate: @Berean Hunter:. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Thanks! VwM.Mwv (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thanks for your comments! VwM.Mwv (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) It would seems that both TonyBallioni and GoldenRing declined to take a regular admin action in regards to multiple "anti-Palestinian" labels. Without addressing any specific admin action, the disparity of administrative action on Wikipedia in regards to "anti-Palestinian" vs "anti-Semitic" labeling does not reflect well on Wikipedia as a whole. VwM.Mwv has been doing constructive work on the 2019 legislative election in Israel (to be held April 9th 2019) - and there is more work in that field to be done (new parties, merged parties, election polling, etc.). This is a new editor, and I am willing to provide guidance and mentoring to him. My first word of advice would be to avoid any use of "you" or any statement on any other editor, and the second would to keep talk page posts short and to the point - and avoid replying ad infinitum. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I'm glad to accept your offer, and I'll keep the advice in mind. VwM.Mwv (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In response to the apology and the commitment to not use pejorative labels for other editors, coupled with the kind offer of guidance made by Icewhiz, I would support an unblock. I'll watchlist this page and keep an eye on other responses. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see 331dot was thinking the same thing at the same time and has unblocked. In that case, I'll switch this to an endorsement of the unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@331dot and Boing! said Zebedee: Thanks both! Just so I'm sure, does this mean this matter is fully closed (per the relevant unblock conditions)? VwM.Mwv (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are still bound(as any user is) by the conditions related to the general editing of articles related to Israeli/Palestinian issues if you choose to edit in that area, but you are otherwise able to resume editing subject to your heeding the advice of Icewhiz. This resolves the immediate issues that led to the block and its extension. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that that you can also now remove the block discussions from this page of you wish, or archive them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@331dot and Boing! said Zebedee: Got it! 👍 VwM.Mwv (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Going forward

VwM.Mwv, I have a few requests and comments regarding editing in the immediate future:

You may e-mail me - go to my talk and click "email this user" - and I suggest you do so prior to leveling accusations and/or requesting administrative action against another user. From my experience - a second set of eyes and a different point of view will often lead one to back down from a request that might WP:BOOMERANG back against thyself. The vast majority of things on Wikipedia can wait 24-48-72 hours - if you are in conflict - back off, think about it, talk to me, and after that - consider going back into it with a level and cool head.
No main-space edits to anything remotely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict - you aren't allowed to until you are ECP (500 edits) - and you do not want to get even close to violating the 500/30 line. If there is even a little doubt in your mind - then NO. And - again - you are welcome to ask me if I think it is conflict related - it is probably best to do so prior to any blunders (which can lead to swift and brutal enforcement - the 500/30 line is strictly enforced in ARBPIA).
No talk page discussions on anything Arab-Israeli conflict related, ~~with the possibly exception of suggesting a typo correction on a conflict page.~~ What you were doing on Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions was going no-where good - that's the sort of discussion where it is best to briefly state your position, back off, and wait for the RfC. I suggest however, that you simply stay clear of conflict related talk page editing in the really near future - as there are many-many pitfalls one can fall into.
Don't comment on other editors - read WP:AVOIDYOU - and abide by it. There's close to nothing to be gain by saying anything about another editor (and anything just about may be considered an attack by some, even if you don't - there are people here from different cultures and what is considered offensive varies (even inside the English speaking world - e.g. UK vs. US vs. Australia). Comment on content - and keep your comments on content policy driven and polite - e.g. "That was an atrocious comment" - it making things personal, conversely - "That is not support by mainstream sources" is policy based.
Avoid getting into talk page-loops. Comment once. Maybe reply once. Think twice bout replying twice. And then back off - and let others comment.
And again - any questions - please do ask me. I'm fairly responsive during most weekdays, and will also answer (though at time a few hours later) during the weekend.

Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No talk page edits to conflict related either - not even typos - missed the sanction applied. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thanks a lot, I actually just asked a question about this on your talk page. VwM.Mwv (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits...

Please do not mark reverts of other editors as minor edits. Minor edits are uncontroversial edits, which reverts are not. Also, please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD, which while only an essay is very strongly supported by the editing community. When one has been reverted by two other editors, it’s generally a good idea not to add back the information a third time. You risk getting blocked for WP:3RR. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Sorry, I didn't consider most of these edits as reverts because while I did restore information, I also changed the specific details that other editors objected to. Furthermore, I've started a discussion on the talk page. I'm certainly not interested in any sort of edit war. VwM.Mwv (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

you should read WP:REVERT. Specifically...”Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion.” Adding back information that’s been removed is indeed a revert. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Thanks, I was just about to ask for a clear definition. I'll read it now. VwM.Mwv (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: One thing is still unclear to me: Am I allowed to partially restrore information per a talk page suggestion that no one has objected to, or will that, too be considered as edit warring? VwM.Mwv (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

that’s not a good idea. It can be seen as edit warring, especially if you do it quickly, without allowing others to weigh in. And it often depends on the article and circumstances...better to be patient and wait. Also, please learn to indent your posts. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

You've been alerted to the special remedy in force in relation to Arab-Israeli edits, and you've been reported and blocked for violating it. That remedy is "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Pinging Galobtter, Yunshui, and 331dot.

You violated it again at The Holocaust by adding: "Germany also paid over $500 million in subsidies for Israel's purchases of Dolphin-class submarines since the 1990s, in part as reparations for the Holocaust and for its weapons' sales to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein which were used against Israeli civilians ..." You reverted when the edit was removed. I would normally say go to the talk page instead of edit warring, but Galobtter appears to have banned you from posting on talk about those issues too. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: That was in context to the Holocaust reparations. How could that possibly be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? It was merely a detail to explain that the submarine subsidies were not for the Holocaust only, but also for weapons' sales to Saddam (as well as to boost the German industry, for that matter). Though, the relevant topic was the Holocaust only.
Edit: I realize now that it could maybe, maybe be seen as somehow slightly related, but it's reverted, so this problem should be resolved now, shouldn't it? VwM.Mwv (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I don't want to keep discussing this, but it's self-evident that "for its weapons' sales to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein which were used against Israeli civilians" is about the Arab-Israeli conflict. If you're saying you're not able to understand what the discretionary sanctions mean, that does not bode well for your future here. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I still maintain that the issue is completely irrelated the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I'll be even more careful in the future. I will not even mention anything about any detail about it, even if it's not the topic or even the sub-topic. VwM.Mwv (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions are interpreted broadly. If you think there is even a minuscule chance an edit could be related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, you shouldn't make it. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: I absolutely understand. Should I archive this now? VwM.Mwv (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That's up to you. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter and Yunshui: Issue resolved by another admin. Archiving now. VwM.Mwv (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

A couple of comments -

If you get reverted - go to the talk page. After talking a bit - try and make a compromise edit. Note that while Wikipedia is a place anyone can edit, some articles (usually important topics, and often they are Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles) are watched by many editors and the text there is a work of compromise between many - e.g. I personally still feel like I'm at the kiddie table if I'm editing The Holocaust for instance - I defer to the established editors there.
Stay clear of anything with a whiff of Arab-Israeli conflict - weapons, controversial places (e.g. anything in the West Bank) - anything. You probably will be ECP soon anyways - and you are under scrutiny - it's not worth even getting close.
Indenting on talk pages (the long version is Wikipedia:Indentation) - the short version is copy the ":::::"s from the beginning of the line in the post above you, and add one ":" to increase the indent level by one. If you are the first reply - then ":" at the beginning.

Regards - and you are welcome to ping, e-mail, or post on my talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi, please don't keep reverting when people object to your edits. The best way to proceed is to propose the edit on talk. A second option is to respect Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, known as BRD. Make the edit, and if it's reverted, open a talk-page discussion and wait for consensus to form. The Holocaust article is problematic in areas, and it's important to make sure it doesn't deteriorate. That's why particular attention is being paid there. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 20:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)