User talk:Apndrew: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
CoffeeCrumbs (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1232297034 by Apndrew (talk) You may *not* remove declined unblock requests per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK |
CoffeeCrumbs (talk | contribs) My apologies, read the wrong date. |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
{{unblock reviewed |1= The reason for my block (see above) says "[t]o enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations". ScottishFinnishRadish states the reason for the block is not because of the arb request, despite the aformentioned sentence stating exactly that. He/she further states I still haven't familiarized myself with the rules on WP:ECR. Nevertheless, let's delve into both issues including the WP:ECR violations, as they are both connected. The WP:ECR Violations -- The main edits at issue relate to additional information I attempted to add on the "Ideological bias on Wikiepdia" entry. The edits in question are well sourced and related to Anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia (English and Arabic), especially since October 7. After both were removed, I attempted to discuss the matter in the talk page to reach consensus. There were two primary arguments against the additions (see the talk page): 1) Arguing that the World Jewish Congress is not a good source as its a Zionist organization and that such Jews cannot be trusted to fact check; and 2) That "there will be suggestions and actions of bias from both sides...[t]hat happens when you are unbiased." As to point 1, I won't dignify this blatant bigotry with a response and it is what led to the request for arbitration (see more on this below). As to point 2, this cannot be used as a reason to withhold the added language as there already includes an entire section in the entry dedicated to supposed Pro-Israeli bias on wikipedia (see CAMERA campaign). To allow evidence of pro-Israel entries and deny evidence of anti-Israel evidence (on both Wikipedia English and Arabic) is far from neutral, and extremely hypocritical, especially when you use logic that there are arguments both directions. If that's true, why is only the evidence of supposed pro-Israel bias on Wikipedia allowed in this entry? The Arbitration Request -- The arbitration request is a related to the above issue. As mentioned in the Wiki related to it, Arbitration is a last resort and only "if you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article" Given the blatant bigotry in the response to my request and the potential bias on Wikipedia itself that may have led to the removal of the attempted additions (which ironically, relate to this very issue), the issue was no longer over the content of the article and something much deeper. In addition, I can't reasonably be expected to resolve the dispute with editors who display bigotry. As a final comment, there was an additional edit to "Anne Norton"'s Wikipedia entry that accused her of Antisemitism for liking a post that claimed "Playing the victim is what Jews are best at." It appears that an argument was made that this also relates to the contentious topic of the "Arab–Israeli conflict" and thus subject to WP:ECR. Even broadly construed, I fail to see how a post claiming that "Jews" are best at "playing victim" is in any way related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?? By this logic, any time the word Jew is mention, it somehow implicates the "Arab-Israeli conflict"? |decline = You have given no reasonable grounds to contest your block. [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 11:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
: |
: |
||
Latest revision as of 01:45, 3 July 2024
Welcome!
|
