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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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)

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=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. :[[Special:Contributions/49.181.58.245|49.181.58.245]] ([[User talk:49.181.58.245#top|talk]]) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |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=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. :[[Special:Contributions/49.181.58.245|49.181.58.245]] ([[User talk:49.181.58.245#top|talk]]) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |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=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. :[[Special:Contributions/49.181.58.245|49.181.58.245]] ([[User talk:49.181.58.245#top|talk]]) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

. 49.181.58.245 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

---