User talk:Ironcladded

December 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeatedly ignoring the extended-confirmed restriction in this area after detailed explanations why they apply to these edits (Special:Permalink/1192177535), you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks. 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.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2023 (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."

Where was I talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict and how can I report you for your actions here? Thanks. Ironcladded (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain this to you; the explanations are linked in the block message ("Permalink"). Your second question is answered by the second paragraph of the box. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not try to explain anything to me, you provided several examples, I pointed out that 4 out of 5 of them were your interpretations.

Furthermore, after that action was taken, I did not mention anything that could be tangentially construed as being a part of that conflict. Please show me direct evidence of this. Thanks Ironcladded (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire discussion was caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict; you have indirectly acknowledged this in your very first edit message when referring to "polemic reasons", and you have explicitly confirmed it in Special:Diff/1192168341. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did you tell me I could not continue to comment without reference to the conflict. Nowhere do rules specify this, either.

You are inferring intent on 4 out of the 5 messages. My motivations for correcting historical documents are not important, the veracity of the information is. None of my messages since the warning can be REMOTELY CONSTRUED to be a part of the conflict, and you are using an earlier part of a discussion to indict me for a latter one.

Respectfully, you did NOT answer my question as to how to report YOU for misconduct. Thanks again. Ironcladded (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a less clear case than I thought. As arbitration enforcement actions can't simply be undone and require a comparatively large discussion and formal consensus-building to be overturned, I'd prefer this not to be one; I'll undo the block and strikethrough the log entry at WP:AELOG/2023.

As you have acknowledged and I do find relevant, your motivation for these edits is the Arab-Israeli conflict, or to be more precise, your dissatisfaction with others having made edits to mention or not mention Palestine, influenced by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is extremely close to being prohibited by the extended-confirmed restriction, but it arguably isn't, contrary to my first interpretation.

I believe that your (current) actions on Wikipedia are misusing it as a battleground, and I also believe that editing about different topics would be a beneficial change, but I'm not in a position to enforce it.

Now that you are unblocked, you can create a new section at WP:AN if you'd like to complain; the unblock request syntax above is not needed anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to reason here, appreciated. I didn't mean to threaten with some form of report, my interpretation is that I did not violate the rules for talking about a conflict simply by being motivated or mentioning it in passing. I am still learning the rules, and am doing my best to keep debate on the talk page. Ironcladded (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ironcladded, you're welcome, and thank you. I'm sorry for the hasty block and the way of having provided my view as an "explanation" – even forced through using a block – that was far from being as objective as an explanation should be. Your interpretation is probably correct as the topic restriction is about, well, a topic, and not the motivation for editing it. If the Arab-Israeli conflict inspired you to write about flowers and the blue sky, yearning for peace, then that would obviously not be a restriction violation. That the edit war was about whether "Palestine" is included as a word or not has raised alarm bells in my head, but it has been a false alarm in this case. Due to having been directly affected by a rule new to you, you've had a better view for the details of that rule than me in my routine blindness. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]