User talk:Mikewem

October 2024

Hello, I'm PakEditor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Liturgy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. PakEditor (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The language in the article I removed goes directly against WP:NPOV

I view your edit as disruptive. Mikewem (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikewem: The article already contains Liturgy is the customary public ritual of worship performed by a religious group. I could not understand why you wanted to remove that content. Can you explain your changes with providing WP:RS or directly text from the sources for your changes. & then add them with citations at the article. Thanks. PakEditor (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not remove "by a religious group", I removed "by this specific religious group". "By a religious group" is still there because that statement is NPOV. "By this and specifically this religious group" was removed because that statement is not NPOV

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liturgy No mention of any specific religion in the definition here Mikewem (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Zionism. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I did and do assume good faith. You are now making baseless accusations on my talk page. Mikewem (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't asking: this edit summary speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Mikewem! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please keep edit requests simple, change X to Y, sourced as necessary. No lengthy explanations, justifications, etc and avoid section headings such as "Controversial, unsourced statement in lead; invites accusations of antisemitic bias", "Edit Request" is sufficient. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I was as concise as I could've possibly been. Please do not delete edit requests in the future. I changed the title for the sake of civility, though I maintain the title was civil and conformed to WP guidelines. Mikewem (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, if you persist with reverting (so far, 3 different editors), I will ask that you be blocked from editing. Use the template if you are having problems. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, can you clarify here, please. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:Zionism) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Have the other editors who engaged in edit warring also been blocked? Mikewem (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) For what it's worth, I don't agree that your comment should have been wholesale removed. It needed to be a lot clearer and more concise for it to stand a chance of being actioned, but it was not disruptive in itself. Nonetheless, repeatedly restoring it against multiple other editors was disruptive and this block was necessary to stop that. Please take the 24 hours to draft an actionable edit request. Maybe familiarise yourself with a less controversial area of Wikipedia first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to engage with whatever area of Wikipedia I would like. Thank you for confirming your view that the deletions were vandalism. The other editors appeared to be working together, which is a violation of WP policy.

Please focus your blocks on vandals in the future. Mikewem (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, if the comment should not have been wholesale removed, then it would not fall under the ECR exemption for edit warring, so I'm interested in if you think this was edit request enough to be acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish In my opinion, the request stood no chance of being accepted but removing it, although in good faith, was unnecessary and needlessly escalated the situation. Words of advice on how to formulate an actionable request was all that was required. But once multiple people got involved we end up in a situation where everyone reverts because someone else reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, the question isn't whether the request would have been acted upon, but whether it was in the correct format. Was it in the correct format? Mikewem (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been acted upon and it wasn't in the correct format. You would have known that if you spent more time reading WP:ARBECR, WP:EDITXY and WP:ERSAMPLE (all three mentioned in the edit summaries) and less time edit warring and casting aspersions (accusing good faith editors of vandalism). M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

An admin has already confirmed by edit request conformed to all those guidelines, thank you for restating them. Mikewem (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Rosguill blocked me even though the vandalism page he cited defines talk page vandalism vandalism as:

Illegitimately removing or editing other users' comments, especially in closed discussions, or adding offensive comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.

WP:TPV

People illegitimately removed my TP comment, according to this that makes them vandals. And I got perm blocked for saying I was reverting vandalism? Mikewem (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the edits I reverted were vandalism Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You do not appear to understand what vandalism is, nor WP:PIA, as demonstrated by both this request and successive comments on this page. Upgrading to indefinite block pending demonstration of an understanding of the relevant rules as disruption seems clear to continue per responses like Special:Diff/1254162828 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies

Please accept my apologies for reverting your comment on the WP:AN page. I initially thought it was someone evading their block at first, but realized on this page you were only partially blocked. So once again, sorry about that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm new to dealing with the notice boards (I haven't heard good things, wish me luck lol). I admit that my comment may not be perfectly in the absolutely correct format and I appreciate that you are on the lookout for users misusing the boards.

Thank you for your contributions. Mikewem (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and clear intent to ignore WP:PIA following the edit warring block, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

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. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

---

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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Mikewem (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. I’ve been indefinitely blocked (more than 24 hours now) for a first violation of 3RR. I made a good faith edit request on a contentious topic talk page in the correct format. Selfstudier began an edit war over it. I reverted their first deletion of my edit request. They claimed they didn’t like the subject line and gave a suggested subject title. I changed it to that suggestion and then they deleted it additional times. I reverted those additional times. I fully acknowledge that once Selfstudier started deleting me even after I compromised with them, I should have gone to AN instead of edit warring. If something like this happens again, I will go to AN after the first revert. Mikewem (talk) 18:30, 29 October 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=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. I’ve been indefinitely blocked (more than 24 hours now) for a first violation of 3RR. I made a good faith edit request on a contentious topic talk page in the correct format. Selfstudier began an edit war over it. I reverted their first deletion of my edit request. They claimed they didn’t like the subject line and gave a suggested subject title. I changed it to that suggestion and then they deleted it additional times. I reverted those additional times. I fully acknowledge that once Selfstudier started deleting me even after I compromised with them, I should have gone to AN instead of edit warring. If something like this happens again, I will go to AN after the first revert. [[User:Mikewem|Mikewem]] ([[User talk:Mikewem#top|talk]]) 18:30, 29 October 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=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. I’ve been indefinitely blocked (more than 24 hours now) for a first violation of 3RR. I made a good faith edit request on a contentious topic talk page in the correct format. Selfstudier began an edit war over it. I reverted their first deletion of my edit request. They claimed they didn’t like the subject line and gave a suggested subject title. I changed it to that suggestion and then they deleted it additional times. I reverted those additional times. I fully acknowledge that once Selfstudier started deleting me even after I compromised with them, I should have gone to AN instead of edit warring. If something like this happens again, I will go to AN after the first revert. [[User:Mikewem|Mikewem]] ([[User talk:Mikewem#top|talk]]) 18:30, 29 October 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=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. I’ve been indefinitely blocked (more than 24 hours now) for a first violation of 3RR. I made a good faith edit request on a contentious topic talk page in the correct format. Selfstudier began an edit war over it. I reverted their first deletion of my edit request. They claimed they didn’t like the subject line and gave a suggested subject title. I changed it to that suggestion and then they deleted it additional times. I reverted those additional times. I fully acknowledge that once Selfstudier started deleting me even after I compromised with them, I should have gone to AN instead of edit warring. If something like this happens again, I will go to AN after the first revert. [[User:Mikewem|Mikewem]] ([[User talk:Mikewem#top|talk]]) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

No justification given to indefinitely block. I did not engage in battleground and I did not disrupt PIA. I intend to refer this action to arbitration. Mikewem (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've spoken with Rosguill, and they're willing to allow an unblock without the normal AE rigamarole. That discussion is here. In order to go that route you must familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, especially those that relate to contentious topics and demonstrate that you understand how your editing was disruptive. That includes understanding why calling good faith WP:ECR enforcement vandalism and edit warring is disruptive. There was a lot of subpar behavior in this situation, but it was greatly exacerbated by your edit warring and aggression. Simply holding off on the edit warring and seeking clarification would have avoided all of this. I suggest you think on this for a while, take some time to regain a level head about the situation, and then decide how you want to proceed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, there’s a lot to unpack here. I acknowledge and understand that doing so could come across as litigious, especially from an editor with few edits. I understand that an overly litigious WP is not in anyone’s interest and should be avoided wherever possible. Ultimately, yes, I am more interested in improving WP than standing on principle.

The edit request compromise for CT is what it is. I don’t know that anyone is calling it a perfect system, and I’m sure it must introduce some amount of extra work for over-worked admins.

I have read through and understand the cited guidelines. If you’re willing, could you give any feedback on whether my current understanding of the incident is off?:

I submitted a good faith edit request. It was immediately deleted. I was allowed to revert that one deletion because if someone deletes your good faith talk page comment, you are allowed to revert them. (Do I have that right?) Then someone else deleted it because they said they didn’t like the title. So I reverted them and changed the title. When they deleted me again after I compromised, I stopped assuming good faith from that one editor at that point. Regardless, was that the point to go to admin? Is the expectation to behave as if you assume good faith even when bad faith is being displayed (from one’s own perspective)? I understand that repeated reversions don’t help WP and get people feeling defensive.

Do you have any insight on this: when the editor deleted me because they said they didn’t like the title, if instead of reverting them, I simply made a new post with exactly the same body but a subject of “edit request”, would that choice have been viewed as more or less aggressive than reverting and changing the title?

I understand that edit requests are expected to be short. For clarity, are they allowed to include brief justification and evidence from sources? Are they more or less likely to be deleted if there is no justification or explanation whatsoever? Mikewem (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ECR edit request only system is the best of bad options for how to deal with the disruption and sockpuppetry in the topic area. Like you say, it is what it is, and if there were a better option that someone had thought of we'd likely be dealing with the fallout of that.

I think the biggest issue is that once you're in the "ECR loop" it becomes less likely that immediate adjustments will lead to anyone actually treating your request as valid. It's not great, but again, it is what it is. Editors in the topic area that work to enforce ECR revert literally thousands of ECR violations. It's a similar problem to new changes patrollers reverting and warning IPs for good faith, if not suitable, edits. When you're reviewing 95% dross it gets easy to see everything as dross. That's not a good reason, but again, it is what it is, and it's common in pretty much all patrolling/enforcement.

Secondly, edit requests have to be clear and actionable. At 402 words and three actual requests it's hitting the threshold of not clear and actionable. Keeping things short and separate is much more effective. Also, leave out personal commentary and focus on sources. For example:

“The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv, with little Zionist resources being deployed in support of European Jews.”

~The source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. The elephant on the room here is the phrase “Zionist resources.” A reasonable observer could interpret that phrase to mean “Jewish money.” That gets into un-encyclopedic territory that is unfit for Wikipedia. Because the source makes no mention whatsoever of “resources”, I think this sentence should be changed to:

”The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv.”

works much better as

In paragraph X, section Y the source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. Because the source makes no mention whatsoever of “resources”, I think this sentence should be changed to:

−

The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv, with little Zionist resources being deployed in support of European Jews.

+

The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv.

That cuts the text of the explanation in half, leaves out personal commentary that verges a bit into WP:NOTAFORUM, and plainly displays the change. Doing that for each individual request, preferably with some time between to address the earlier request, makes your requests clearly constructive and easy to see and implement.

As far as reverting, technically, yes, you can. However, editors that are enforcing WP:ECR are not constrained by the bright-line edit warring rules, and although this case is a murky since as it was noted above the request stood no chance of being accepted and edit requests are required to be constructive to meet the ECR threshold, the reverts of your request were not unreasonable. Also, yes, you should be assuming good faith even when you're seeing behavior you think isn't acceptable. Assume, for instance, that the editors reverting you have reverted hundreds or thousands of violations of ECR, and know from experience what edit requests are constructive enough to have a chance, and are worth editor time in reviewing.

Yes, should should have gone to an admin, or AN, or some other venue to seek clarification on why you were being reverted and if it was acceptable rather than reverting over and over. As far as changing the title or creating a new section, changing the title was fine, but as I explained above there were further issues with the request as written. I think the last point is the justification and evidence. That should be included, yes. But you want to keep it as concise as possible, and with as little A reasonable observer could interpret that phrase to mean “Jewish money.” That gets into un-encyclopedic territory that is unfit for Wikipedia. as possible. A much better justification is the source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to present an edit request with 2 options?:

“I suggest change X to Y

OR

Add source needed tag to X”

or would that be seen as overly presumptive?

Would the flow go something more like: I present request for X to Y, then it gets denied, then I present request to add source needed to X in a separate request? Mikewem (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, btw Mikewem (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You could include two options, as long as it remains clear and concise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I feel good if you feel good. Unless there’s something else to go over? Mikewem (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully ScottishFinnishRadish is fine with me offering a minor interjection here. To offer a perspective of a fairly uninvolved editor, if you'd used the standard edit request template, and I'd seen your request (which was unlikely since I hardly ever edit in the topic area and don't go looking for requests), I probably would have marked your request as answered and said something like 'not done, way too much for an edit request and it doesn't seem like all of your requests are even the sort of clear cut issues edit requests are meant for'.

It would have been better to start simple with perhaps the clearest problem. If that was successful, I don't think any editor would have minded you asking for something else if it was another reasonable request. If it was denied, then I guess it wasn't as clear cut was you thought and you'd have to consider whether any of your other suggestions were likely to be the same.

I feel what I said is similar to what SFR has said, but I bring up to because of another key point. While I'm not sure I would have personally deleted even the edit request you left, I think you're thinking the deletion is way more of a deal than it is. While leaving an edit request on the talk page would mean any other editor allowed into the A-I topic area can see it and decide actually some of it can be dealt with, or alternatively start a discussion on some of the issues you brought up; I'm pretty sure that in reality once edit requests are denied, it's rare much comes of them. I think some of them are even archived quickly e.g. within a few days which is perfectly allowed. In other words, while editors probably shouldn't be deleting reasonable edit requests instead just answering them either by effecting them or rejecting them, I expected rarely much difference between deleting one and answering but rejecting it.

Edit requests on ECR pages are sort of a unique situation since while normally the editor making an edit request could challenge the rejection or otherwise try to start a wider discussion over their proposed changes to get consensus, this isn't something that a non EC editor can do on ECR pages.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first message on your user page is that in your opinion there may be a major widespread admin corp issue on WP. Mikewem (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

We need a clear, unequivocal statement that demonstrates familiarity with our policies and guidelines and an understanding of how your editing was disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It would also help to have some examples of non-Arab/Israel conflict material you plan on editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I gave the unequivocal statement already. Now you’re adding on extra requirements and hoops to jump through.

Editors shouldn’t be deleting edit requests. If none of them were sanctioned but I was, then we’ll have to go to arbitration. Mikewem (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I did notice that the other editor involved said they will no longer enforce ECR on their talk page. I support that decision from that one editor. Mikewem (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify, I do not want to go to arbitration and I think it is still avoidable. Do you consider the Liturgy page to be within the Arab/Israel conflict? Specifically my edits there, would you define those as non-A/I material? Mikewem (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)