User talk:49.181.58.245

November 2024

Hello, I'm Marchjuly. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it could be argued that the question you posted at the Wikipedia Teahouse was OK and didn't necessarily need to be removed, your follow up wasn't per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please keep that in mind moving forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I am generally allowed to ask questions about Zionism, or any topic for that matter, on Wikipedia’s Teahouse, provided that my question is within Wikipedia’s guidelines for constructive discourse. I am sorry if you found my reply to be less than civil but another is constantly gatekeeping the page in not even letting me ask the question. I wasn't calling them Zionist btw but simply saying I don't believe they have a right to stop me like this and it is not of good cause. 49.181.58.245 (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is not geared to one particular group of people and it's not intended to be a WP:FORUM for discussing anything and everything whenever one feels like it. The Teahouse is primarily for asking general questions about Wikipedia and Wikipedia editing. There's also no WP:FREEDOMOFSPEECH anywhere on Wikipedia, and all comments are expected to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (more specifically Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). Asking questions about Zionism and the other things you mentioned above is fine within the context of how those subjects are dealt with by Wikipedia; personal attacks directed towards other Wikipedia users or other groups of people, however, aren't OK. That's the line you're going to need to be wary of if you want to discuss things on Wikipedia. You should also be aware that certain topics are considered to be Wikipedia:Contentious topics by the Wikipedia community and further restrictions have been placed on where and how they may be discussed. Those restrictions apply to all Wikipedia pages and all persons, so please also keep that in mind when posting about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly can you tell me honestly if is normal that after casting one aspersion, and not repeating it again. And not reverting back my questions after it got removed twice but instead later asking for clarity on admin noticeboard to double check if user - CFA was accurate about such restriction or if they are wrong. Should all that make me deserve a 72 hour block? Seems extreme. 49.181.58.245 (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can suggest to you is that you look at WP:UNBLOCK and WP:NOTTHEM before submitting another unblock request. I'm not an administrator and two users who are have already commented below about how "broadly construed" tends to be applied when it comes to contentious topics; so, you should keep that in mind moving forward too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your reply, and I know you’re not an admin, but you seem experienced enough to understand these situations. I’ve been around long enough to witness disruptive vandals often get lighter treatment for doing much worse. Many warnings before finally blocked. Honestly, it’s just surprising to receive a 72-hour block for casting a single aspersion -something I didn’t repeat after your initial warning - and for reverting my questions after they were removed twice but not more than that - and Zero warnings beforehand. All I did was ask for clarity on the administrator noticeboard to double-check if User:CFA’s interpretation of the restriction was accurate or not. Given that context, does this really justify a 72-hour block? It’s not like I was planning to reject the noticeboard's response if they agreed my question should be restricted. I read their response and was ready to accept it. But before I had the chance to thank them and explain that I understood, I was blocked before I could even do that.49.181.58.245 (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You said:

I understand I am generally allowed to ask questions about Zionism, or any topic for that matter, on Wikipedia’s Teahouse

Actually, your understanding is incorrect. The WP:Teahouse is there pretty much just for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. For this reason, removal was the correct response, as questions about Zionism are off-topic at the WP:Teahouse. You can, however, ask such questions at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right but I should add that technically speaking, my original question on teahouse was about editing Wikipedia. I wasn't asking for deeper knowledge into a particular subject like Zionism. I was specifically asking why there is no articles about AIPAC's influence on US elections and wanting clarity to know if there's some rule or official policy or any reasonable explanation for that. And planning to ask if it was okay for me to create one and later on how. As it was odd that there wasn't any dedicated articles. Nonetheless the teahouse hosts never said my particular question wasn't allowed for being off topic. They said it's not allowed to be discussed by editors without extended confirmed status. They implied that if I get extended confirmed status, I can later ask them what articles are okay or forbidden. So if I do take your advice and ask about AIPAC's influence again but with Wikipedia Reference Desk, I am very certain they will instantly block me again for a repeat offence and ignoring their advice. So thanks but I am not going to ask Wikipedia reference desk the same thing as I already have too much headache dealing with a confusing bureaucratic minefield the last time. Maybe will try your advice too if I get extended confirmed status one day. 49.180.161.252 (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps I should have mentioned that given the history heretofore, asking again at the Ref Desk would not be a good idea at present, but you already figured that out, so clearly you are starting to get the hang of things, at least to that extent. My apologies for not mentioning that earlier, and putting you at risk of getting your hand slapped for trying what I recommended. I'm glad you didn't, and agree that later would be better (if at all).

In the meantime, while figuring out the rest of it, probably a good idea to avoid contentious topics for the time being. Concentrating on upping your experience and skills on (not too recent-) history, the sciences, art, entertainment, technology, economics, and other topics that generate lots more light than heat would be a good strategy for a while. Mathglot (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed restriction

Hi, to prevent disruption, only editors with an account and over 500 edits can discuss the Palestine—Israel conflict, broadly construed. C F A 💬 01:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except I am not even talking about Palestine - Israel war. Not once did I mention that anywhere. I talked about Zionist lobbies over US elections. Which is not the same thing nor is explicitly banned for users with less than 500 edits, to talk about reasonably. 49.181.58.245 (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction is broadly construed. Anything involving Zionism is included, as it is a motivating political movement/ideology that is pivotal to the conflict _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I apologise for casting a single aspersion, which I did not repeat after getting a single warning. I no longer was reverting my questions after they were removed twice, but instead sought clarification on the administrator noticeboard to verify if User:CFA was correct about the restriction or if they were mistaken. Given this, does such behavior really deserve a 72-hour block? It feels like an extreme response when I was simply trying to understand the situation. And if noticeboard only tell me once and clarify that questioning Zionism is prohibited in teahouse then I had every intention to accept that. I wasn't trying to vandalise or be unconstructive. So I apologise for my one aspersion and my failure to understand the question is truly restricted despite it wasn't very clear as it states restrictions are on Israel Palestinean war but it's not easy to tell if it applies to a loosely related topic of AIPAC lobby in USA. But I read the response at admin noticeboard and understand fully that it covers my question too. Given this, I ask for leniency as 72 hours is harsh for my actions. I personally do oppose Zionism and make no apologies for that. But I do apologise for implying that pro Zionists were blocking my question. That was unfair of me and will not repeat as I understand you can't make such assumptions here. :49.181.58.245 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wow, you got off with only a 72 hour block? The blocking admin was feeling generous. If I saw someone pull that WP:0T garbage, I'd have blocked for longer. Yamla (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2024 (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.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Hello, 49.181.58.245,

I think the reason why you were blocked is because you were given explanations for why your questions were removed (see above on your talk page) but you kept at it, persistently, even going to ANI to file a complaint. Editors tried to explain what was inappropriate but you have not accepted their explanations. After your block is over, if you continue to pursue this argument, expect the next block to last months, not a few days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was given an explanation. And those explanation was honestly questionable because they told me that it was a restriction on the Israel/Palestine war. But I wasn't even editing that topic but primarily on US election interference and AIPAC. So it is not unreasonable for me to continue to question if that restriction even applies to my question. Regardless I no longer reverted back my questions on Teahouse and simply intended to escalate to admin noticeboard to get clarity and ensure I am getting the fair facts. If the noticeboard simply confirmed I am not permitted then I would respect that decision. Initially I had no intention to go further as why would I? 49.181.58.245 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, please understand that I’m not personally familiar with CFA and can’t blindly rely on what another editor claims without clarification. I’m here to learn and contribute in good faith, not to cause disruption, and I believe I should be able to ask questions without the fear of excessive punishment. If the real issue is that certain topics, like Zionism on US politics are unwelcome on Wikipedia teahouse, then please be clear about that. New editors who come to teahouse, will not be instantly familiar with such things and may find it suss. - And if I am not allowed to do "personal attack" - you already gave me one warning and I NEVER repeated that. Nor have I reverted my questions after they were removed twice, but I instead sought clarification on the administrator noticeboard to verify if User:CFA was correct about the restriction or if they were mistaken. Given this, does such behavior really deserve a 72-hour block? I seen vandals get less for worse. It feels like an extreme response when I was simply trying to understand the situation that was in fairness, not that clear cut. 49.181.58.245 (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:CTOPS (contentious topics)? It sounds like you've stumbled into at least two of them by mistake. Discussion on these topics is very carefully monitored and restricted as they tend to explode into huge arguments with personal attacks everywhere, which is not at all useful for building and improving the encyclopedia. If you make an account, after you fulfil the requirements you can discuss these topics on talk pages in relation to improving articles that involve the topics. I hope this helps you understand some of the situation at least. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StartGrammarTime My IP address changed now again and is not something I have control over. But thank you, that was actually courteous and helpful in understanding an unfamiliar situation.49.180.167.51 (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz @Bbb23 @ Yamla You all commented on my talk page and seem experienced.

I probably should have asked this from the start. But hope you don't mind if you could help educate me in what my 72 hour block was specifically for. I cannot emphasize enough that I am not trying to start something but only want to know and think I at least have that right. Because if I don't even know the reason for specifically 72 hours, I fear I will continue to imagine the worst if I don't even ask and get clarity.

Btw I am this user (49.181.58.245) but my IP address changed on its own over time.

My recent expired 72-hour block has left me confused, as I have not been informed of the specific reasons for the punishment beyond an oversimplified statement that's it's disruptive editing. In order to improve my participation and avoid repeating same mistakes, it is crucial that I at least understand what I did wrong to get specifically 72 hours. Without that clarity, how can I learn and grow as a member of the community?

Reflecting on my actions, I believe the primary, yet stills insufficient, reason for the block was that I reposted a question that had been removed thrice. However, I only reverted back question twice, which, based on my understanding, does not constitute edit warring (as it's more than 3 reverts). The guidelines are clear: edit warring happens when a user repeatedly restores someone else's changes without constructive discussion more than 3 times. In my case, I did not even make the third revert but instead chose to stop and seek clarity through the admin noticeboard, which seems like a reasonable step given the circumstances. I attempted to address the issue in a manner that would not disrupt the process further.

Adding to my confusion, the Teahouse, which is supposed to offer guidance and support to new users, was not that clear in its messaging. During the time I was attempting to restore the question, I observed two Teahouse hosts (Marchjuly and I assume a resident IP editor) even engaging in a stance about whether my action was allowed. While one host consistently removed the question, two others argued that it was probably permitted. This conflicting advice at that time, left me unsure about what was actually allowed. Given the different opinions from experienced users, I felt that my actions were justified, and that the question I was restoring was likely fine. Had there been more consistent guidance, I would have had a better understanding of the platform’s expectations. But I chose to stop reverting and sought clarification at admin noticeboard, which should have been a reasonable and responsible step.

Yet I was slapped with a 72 hour block. Obviously I am not asking for an unblock because it expired. But looking back, I still don't understand and with respect, I can't stop thinking what I had done to get 72 hours instant block. But I fear unfair blocks or bans may often arise from unclear communication and inconsistent rule enforcement. And why I need to ask. I am not trying to criticise and hope you can answer this request.49.180.201.206 (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 49.180.201.206,

It's like you didn't even read my comment to you (see above). Please read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. and reflect upon the message of that essay. Your persistence in pushing questions about a brief block have begun to look like trolling. You need to learn from this experience and LET.IT.GO. Continuing to question editors and admins about your block will just lead to a much longer block. I'm not kidding here, admins will lose patience with your insistent requests to explain a block when everyone but you has moved on to continue with work here and they could block you for 3-6 months.

Posting long explanations about why you want to keep discussing the block are irrelevant. I'm telling you this in case you are not being disruptive on purpose and you actually want to contribute to this project in a positive way, by working to improve Wikipedia's articles. Now, drop it and start helping out here instead of focusing on yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, you know I listened and observed. I had Marchjuly answer my question indirectly in talk discussion above and told me that my question is "arguably okay".[1] Additionally, another editor went out of their own way to criticise CFA for removing my question.[2] At the time, Teahouse was sending me mixed messages yet I wasn't even able to ask for clarity on the Teahouse. But it's the Teahouse. Where else can someone ask to clarify policies if not there? Even the admin noticeboard acknowledged that a "newcomer question at the Teahouse should still have had a polite response explaining the situation"[3], especially when such a policy was not easy to understand for anyone who is new to such things. I would admit that I was frustrated and believed I was genuinely right. Tho after your reply, I truly don't believe I actually deserved such harshness just because someone perceived my question as unhelpful criticism of them, when it wasn't intended to. 49.180.167.51 (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if it wasn't obvious, I am 49.181.58.245 but my IP constantly changes automatically but you probably know that. And it's not that I'm worried about being blocked just for asking a straightforward and valid reason behind the 72-hour block. I’m not intimidated by that possibility—it would actually suggest defensiveness rather than a fair response. Your reply, though, has made me realize that this may just be a simple miscommunication.

Looking at things objectively, I don't think your explanation applies to me. The opening line says, "There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end." But as I explained, I was given responses that were both saying my question was allowed and also that it wasn't. This isn’t a "natural end"; it’s an unresolved question given the mixed messages from teahouse hosts back then. Now I understand the situation better only because others like StartGrammarTime gave a helpful explanation instead of just deleting my question without barely explaining it and telling me to be silent, and not let me question if still unclear. From my perspective, it was honestly difficult not to assume the worst. I had also condemned Zionism and then got a 72-hour block. If that was the core reason, I would definitely see that as unacceptable and would consider an admin review. But if it’s just a case of miscommunication, where you assumed I was told that the discussion was over (despite the mixed responses), then I can accept and understand that.

I've posted on the Teahouse to say that I'm letting this go, chalking it up to miscommunication. I may have misunderstood the basis of the block, and it may not have been as nefarious as I initially thought. Thank you for your time and efforts.49.180.167.51 (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.