User talk:Gmc0351

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done wrong, Neil? You only blocked me because an Israeli, probably paid by his own government, is deleting my edit which is against his Zionist agenda. This is not an Orwellian police state. This is an unbiased, objective source of information. Israel has a history of censoring all voices against their Zionist state (https://www.salon.com/2016/08/26/israels-war-on-open-discourse-state-censorship-now-reaches-into-international-news-sources-and-social-media/). I have done nothing wrong, my source is valid, leave it be. Block the Zionist agent יניב_הורון (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91_%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F) instead, unless Wikipedia is now an Israeli propaganda website? Gmc0351 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable

and don't provoke people on their talk pages Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is unacceptable? It's the truth. if it's not then prove me wrong. The guy is an Israeli, likely paid by the government, deleting anything that disagrees with Zionism on Wikipedia. This Orwellian censorship is what's unacceptable. Gmc0351 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating WP:ARBPIA3, 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 21 June 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 indefinitely topic banned from making any edits about the Arab-Israeli conflict. This includes talk pages.

You have been sanctioned for violating WP:ARBPIA3 and harassing other editors

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved me right in doing this, Neil. You're picking the Orwellian Israeli government over an editor with a valid source. I did not "provoke" anybody, that user is literally a propagandist. Is Wikipedia propaganda? Or is it an objective, open source of information? I have done nothing wrong writing on that topic, but the Zionist propagandist gets his way by having me blocked from writing anything because his state government literally has paid employees writing propaganda on the internet. Pick a side: freedom of information or Orewellian censorship. Right now you've chosen the latter, Neil. Gmc0351 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good topic ban. Talking about "Orwellian Israeli government" does not indicate neutrality, and casting Aspersions about other editors' motives (accusations of paid editing are especially not on, here). It's also arguable that you're still making edits (on your talk page) about the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I'll let it slide. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bellezzasolo is right. Any more posts like your previous ones and you're looking at an indefinite block. Edit other topic areas to show you can contribute constructively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gmc0351 (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. Reason is below this template. 2602:306:39CA:990:ADB9:8495:E00A:AC7F (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block was not indefinite, the topic ban is. Since you have almost immediately violated the topic ban on this very page, below, I am declining your unblock appeal, declining to transclude your statement to the AE noticeboard, and increasing the block to an indefinite one. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:56, 22 June 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.

Why an indefinite block? On what justification? I have wronged nobody. I am, in fact, the one wronged, since a certain Israeli user User talk:יניב הורון is trying to squelch me. He keeps unjustly deleting my entry so I agreed with another user that he should receive a topic ban. Then this happens--don't you think this feels Orwellian to me? Why can't I post on my own talk page in response to harsh, unreasonable actions against me? Everything I've said is objectively, empirically, verifiably true. For example: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5101511 Paid Zionists are literally training people to go on Wikipedia and write pro-Israeli articles while pretending to be neutral/unbiased when in fact they are severely biased. Is propaganda not against Wikipedia policy? That user may very well be paid to be on Wikipedia, it is a true statement indeed. Just because you don't like a true statement doesn't mean it's harassment, my good friends! I don't mean to harass anybody, I only want Wikipedia to be the best it can be! You accuse me of not being neutral, yet how could this Zionist Israeli be neutral who may very well be trained and paid by Zionist organizations? Could a N Korean in Pyonyang be neutral about the Korean War? יניב_הורון repeatedly deleted my new entry entirely on the Farhud, which is simply the journalism of an Iraqi Jew who worked for the Israeli government. Shouldn't he be the one blocked? What better source on what happened in Iraq than an eyewitness account by an Iraqi Jew? This is a primary source, why delete it my friends? I'm a US Army veteran, I've been to Iraq myself, and I love Iraqis. I have many friends here in America who are Iraqis! Let them tell their story! Revert it back to Diannaa's revision, please (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farhud&diff=846926953&oldid=846881090). The only reason I can think of that it would be deleted is because this Israeli is trained to delete anything that isn't pro-Zionist. Isn't that a logical conclusion? Why else would he be doing so? He has no other reason to completely remove my entry several times. Why are you so hostile towards me and letting him off the hook? Why don't you give him a topic ban since he clearly is not neutral nor objective and has a long history of creating problems on this topic? All I did was add an unbiased, objectively-written section, reduced to one single sentence, so an Iraqi can tell his side of the story, so please have some understanding! Iraqi Jews have a right to a one-sentence section on the Farhud, and you should agree with me if you indeed are neutral yourselves, kind friends! Am I not justified in calling these actions Orwellian censorship?

Yes Israel is Orwellian, and the facts prove it. (Definition: characteristic of the writings of George Orwell, especially with reference to his dystopian account of a future totalitarian state in Nineteen Eighty-Four.) N Korea is Orwellian, too, are you angry that I said that? It's an objective fact! Will I get topic banned on N Korea for calling them that in a talk page? George Orwell himself agrees with me and was against Zionism (Source: George Orwell: A Personal Memoir" by Tosco Fyvel and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10848770.2015.1020666?journalCode=cele20) therefore calling Zionism "Orwellian" is factually true according to Orwell himself. I didn't write that in an article, simply on a talk page! I can't say this feels Orwellian on my own talk page without getting banned entirely? Sorry if I insulted you, but I'm the one being harassed here! That's simply how it feels to me, I'll ease up on that in the future. I recommend arbitration on this if you do not agree with me, please, my good friends.

Here, several examples of Israeli censorship: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170926-israel-is-censoring-palestinians-and-the-social-media-giants-are-complicit/ https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-partisans-work-censor-internet/ https://www.salon.com/2016/08/26/israels-war-on-open-discourse-state-censorship-now-reaches-into-international-news-sources-and-social-media/ This is an objectively verifiable fact. I have said nothing false. I sincerely believe that user יניב_הורון should get a topic ban, otherwise you'll just wind up with a severely one-sided Wikipedia supporting the censorship and propaganda of a nation. Is that neutral, friends? Explain to me, please, what I have done wrong in giving a one-sentece section to a Jewish Iraqi journalist to deserve a whole topic ban? Then you threaten to completely ban me for defending myself on my own talk page? This is extreme and feels biased to me, my friends, let's take it easy and be objective and neutral. If you still disagree with me then please, let's turn to arbitration on the issue. Just because you have more power than me doesn't mean you can treat me this way! Gmc0351 (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gmc0351 (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. The reason is below this template. 2602:306:39CA:990:ADB9:8495:E00A:AC7F (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This request was made from an IP address rather than your account. You'll need to sign in with your account. As you have lost access to this talk page, you may use WP:UTRS to make your request. Yamla (talk) 17:15, 22 June 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.

I still have no valid answer as to exactly what I have done wrong, why I deserve a ban and an indefinite topic ban, yet the Israeli guy does not who repeatedly deleted my entries even though others were also helping to edit it. You just blocked me without any valid argument as to why, and refused to copy it to the AE noticeboard. Why have you refused to copy it? Secondly, I have a right to defend myself against these bans, including the topic ban. How can I be banned from defending myself? This is a paradox where I'm banned from even defending myself. Please copy both of my appeals to arbitration. "You're violating the topic ban by appealing the topic ban" is not a valid argument to justify the topic ban itself, it is illogical. Please post my appeal for the block and topic ban to the AE noticeboard as requested. These indefinite topic bans are completely unjustified and worse, not copying my appeals to the AE noticeboard to double squelch me from even appealing anything. Gmc0351 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Gmc0351 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21892 was submitted on Jun 22, 2018 17:51:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Yunshui approves, I'd like to change the indefinite block to one for making personal attacks and having a general battleground attitude. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No argument here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 21:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to a non-AE block. Gmc0351, this means any admin can unblock you. Note that if you are unblocked, your topic ban still stands until it is successfully appealed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]