User talk:Bradley1980

You have recently edited a page related to the

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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Hi Bradley1980! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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) 22:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly confine yourself to making edit requests in the AI/IP area. If there are any further breaches of

WP:ARBECR, you invite a block. Thank you for your attention. Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Selfstudier,

May I ask what am I supposed to do in cases where an Esteemed Extended and Confirmed Editor reject the edit suggestion from the riff-raff editors due to a blatant misinterpretation. For example, see the absurd response by the Esteemed Extended and Confirmed Editor who takes his title with great seriousness - Sameboat. This imbecile said: "BBC is merely quoting what was told by the IDF, and again we don't present IDF's claims as a matter of fact in Wikipedia's voice, unless there is a reluable [sic] independent party which agrees with the poor vision claim." Not only is this flatly wrong as the BBC was given footage of the attack to review and was not "merely quoting the IDF" BUT this source and this point is cited in the damn article (in a different section from where I was suggesting) for which he is the Esteemed Extended and Confirmed Editor, which he clearly did not read!

What recourse do I have as a mere riff-raff editor when an edit request is willfully or due to carelessness is misinterpreted? Why do I not have a right to correct them politely, which is what I did without you crossing out my comment and threatening to ban me. Why can you not relax the policy a little bit and allow some minor clarification comments in cases where there is clear misinterpretation?

I am extremely disappointed with the way the sausage gets made in Wikipedia! Bradley1980 (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you contacted me when I began participating in the Talk page. What exactly is your role? Are you an administrator for this entire Wiki article? If not, what gives you the right to ban editors and cross out text? Bradley1980 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Selfstudier is not an admin, but you don't need to be an admin to cross out text. starship.paint (RUN) 12:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't refer to editors as "riff-raff" or "imbecile" as you have done above. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "riff-raff", I don't think you read or understood my comment - it was obvious sarcasm. Regarding "imbecile", I should have said "genius" instead! Bradley1980 (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I blocked? I posted a valid edit suggestion to the page, which I am allowed to do. In the course of the suggestion I exposed what is a clear bias in the page. Is this the real reason I was blocked? Bradley1980 (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, when you block someone "indefinitely" you need to explain why the block occurred! The only thing I did was revert a deletion of my edit suggestion. Does that violate Wiki policy? If so which one? I suspect the real reason I was banned was because my suggested edit was not something you and your friends wanted seen. Bradley1980 (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit suggestion was not valid, your revert was unhelpful to say the least, and you clearly assumed bad faith. You can go away thinking this is a biased place or you can learn to work within the rules and guidelines to edit here. starship.paint (RUN) 12:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ECR and non extended editors are allowed to make suggestions. I did not " insult, harass

, or intimidate those with whom I had a disagreement". I truly believe there is ideological capture of this page. Some extended editors probably think what they are doing is right. There may be ideological blinding but the effect I describe is bias - why should I be forced to pretend it's not there. Moreover, I don't simply assert it - I document multiple cases of it! Please tell me which specific portion or language of Wikipedia rules my edit suggestion violated?

Regarding revert, all I did was simply restore my edit, which was unceremoniously deleted. Is this the actual reason I was banned? Is it that non-EC editors are not allowed to revert the page? If so, why is this revert option available to us non EC-editors?? I was threatened by Selfstudier not to respond to comments in the Talk page because it violates

WP:ARBECR

, which I dutifully obeyed. I did not realize it includes reverts of the Talk page. I assumed we are allowed to do it and the policy is not clear about reverts of the Talk page. Is the revert why I was banned?

The problem is that @ScottishFinnishRadish does not explain why I was banned and refuses to answer any of my questions. If you look at the arbitration enforcement log other users get detailed explanation, whereas I get a generic "ECR Violations". This itself is a violation of the policy of Not Biting Newcomers. I am a new editor, I did not know all the nuanced rules and regulations. I thought that reverting was allowed because I had that option available to me. Why not warn me to say "do not revert talk pages, you are not allowed to do that" just like when I posted comments in the Talk Page and they were crossed out. I complied after the warning. Administrators need to show charity to new editors and not assume they have mastered every minute rule and regulation, and ban them permanently the second they unknowingly violate some esoteric rule. If anyone is acting in bad faith its her ban of me indefinitely without so much as a warning. I very much believe that it was motivated by the kind of political bias that dominates the EC editors that I described in my edit suggestion. Would a new user who did the same thing who supported her(?) ideological beliefs be punished with the same severity?

I also find the instinct to censor, suppress, hide, and delete (which motivated my original edit suggestion) instead of having a discussion about it, extremely revolting and contrary to the spirit of an open Encyclopedia. My edit suggestion was not a troll request, I did not engage in ad hominem attacks about specific individuals, I did not harass anyone. I made a serious and valid request to edit and backed it up with reasoned argument and evidence as to why. The right response is not to assume bad faith on my part (which is somehow unproblematic) but to address some of the valid concerns I raised in an open and transparent manner for all to see. There may be other Wikipedians who share the concern I raised - why not address it in the open, why hide it from view? Bradley1980 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your next posting is trolling like this I'll revoke your talk page access. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish This is absolutely insane! What did I say that is trolling? You don't explain any of your thinking or decisions. I still don't understand what "until they demonstrate an understanding of what is allowed and commit to following that" means. What do you want me to do. I don't know why I was blocked - is it the reversion of the talk page, of the edit suggestion, or both? How am I suppose to demonstrate following something if I am banned from making any edits!!! There is literally nothing I can do to be permanently unblocked. I am in Kafka land! Bradley1980 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley1980, your proposed page-front disclaimer "This page is maintained by editors with a strong anti-Israel bias, I am sure, is applied on zero pages on Wikipedia. We simply do not do that here. Your reasoning has failed to

WP:ARBECR, which was essentially adopted by Wikipedia's top court. I am sure that you've been blocked because editors cannot be reasonably expected to work with you when you state that they are the cancer of Wikipedia, they make it a terrible place for readers and editors, and they subvert its entire mission! I wish they go away and screw around on Reddit and Twitter. Posting that and restoring that shows incompatability with Wikipedia. There is something you can do to be unblocked - withdraw and apologise for your claims, and describe how you will edit within the guidelines moving forward. starship.paint (RUN) 01:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Starship.paint Thanks for your reply. I think you are missing a deeper issue which caused this whole episode and which will remain unresolved if I retract my claims and apologize. This page (as well as others) has editors that use double-standards in terms of the kind of information they allow. It is very clear to any objective observer reading the comments and rationales for rejecting proposed edits that there is a very strong anti-Israel bias. While it is perfectly fine to be anti-Israel or anti-anything - that is your democratic right in an open society. However, when you edit a public project like Wikipedia, you need to leave your political commitments at the door and not let it influence your editing decisions! There is a systemic problem where a group of editors who gained EC status swarm a page (not sure if it's coordinated or not) and edit it in a biased way. Someone said that there are pro-Israel and neutral editors as well. I do not see those in the comments. And by the way, this would be equally problematic if pro-Israel EC editors were doing the same thing!

I think what happens is that there may be neutral people who come in and try to edit and then leave after they are ignored or rejected. Why does the page have about 5 or so regular EC editors? It is because everyone else is discouraged by their behavior. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And if I point this problem out, I am accused of not assuming good faith on behalf of those editors. So does this mean, that everyone is forbidden about talking about this problem lest they violate the good faith rule?

Please tell me what am I supposed to do if this is what I believe. I am not trolling as @ScottishFinnishRadish is accusing me of doing. I sincerely believe this. I think any reasonable person looking at the page and the comments will come to believe this. I understand why the norm to Assume Good Faith exists. I think generally it is a good thing to do. However, what if there are actual people that are more interested in promoting ideological commitments rather than the truth. I believe this is very harmful to Wikipedia because it undermines trust in it and it results in information being withheld from the public based purely on ideological concerns that it may make one of the parties, that one despises, look more positive than one prefers. What is an editor supposed to do in that case? How can they bring it up for discussion or bring it to general attention? In other words, please tell me what should have I done (other than keep my mouth shut) if I have this concern?

P.S. "The cancer of Wikipedia" point is not aimed at all the editors of this article and you can see this if you include the full quote in my original post. It is aimed only at people who make edit decisions based on political considerations or are clearly influenced by them. I truly believe that this behavior is extremely harmful to Wikipedia because it is supposed to be neutral and apolitical - as you well know. I would never say this about someone who has a Substack account or does this on other platforms; I just don't want to see this harmful behavior on this very special place on the internet that I love and want to see be better. Bradley1980 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you sincerely believe this, if you cannot find any way to see good faith in your fellow editors, if you insist on viewing all of the editors on the page in a negative light, then it is better that you spend your time elsewhere. You should have viewed the issue differently. starship.paint (RUN) 12:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint You make it seem like I am accusing people of bad faith without any evidence and that it is God's Truth that in fact they really are editing in good faith. Please read my original post. In it I thoroughly document with examples why I believe this. You don't rebut any of my points - you simply repeat over and over again "Accept the truth or get the hell out of here". It saddens me that you don't see why this is so problematic. Have you for a second entertained the possibility that it is you who is mistaken? Bradley1980 (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what is problematic. I am one of the extended confirmed editors who edits

World Central Kitchen drone strikes. (1) When you asked for information on the unseeable stickers to be included, I was the one who included it, not in a section you like, but still, in the article. (2) When you asked for Israel's response to be included, I asked for some "international reliable sources", but you ignored my request. You didn't know it, but I was trying to steel man your argument. Instead you ranted about The responses for why it should not be included were very revealing ... Times of Israel is included three times in the article when it suited their purpose but is somehow insufficient now... (3) Go and read my objection at Template:Did you know nominations/World Central Kitchen drone strikes where I refused to allow the first proposed DYK hook because sources at the time had not independently reported it. (4) I am [1] [2] literally the editor who has added the IDF investigation results, including their defenses, to the article. I believe that the information is still there. Why is the information still there if this were a page maintained by editors with a strong anti-Israel bias? (5) Look at the requested move to "massacre". Nobody is supporting the nominator. I provided evidence against the request. Why is nobody supporting if this were a page maintained by editors with a strong anti-Israel bias? (6) If I had a strong anti-Israel bias why am I wasting my time talking to you? Let me tell you, you see exactly what you want to see, and you don't see what you don't want to see. starship.paint (RUN) 14:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Starship.paint First of all, thanks for attempting to address the issue at hand. However, you are inadvertently proving my main contention about systematic bias. I address each of your points in turn:

(1) I don't see any information on the useable stickers anywhere in the article. It's also not in the response, where the only thing you say is "...could you find some international reliable sources for this content..". Which section of the article did you put it in? I tried searching for it in multiple ways to no avail.

(2) I am all for steelmaning an argument but the other principle that is important is consistency. Any factual news reported in Times of Israel (a source I deliberately selected as a test) is just as good as in any other major newspaper. If an article already accepts this source, then it is not fair to request additional sources. In other words, nobody should say "oh, well since he is now citing CNN, this is a much stronger case". But the fact that this is necessary to do in the first place, is my whole point. If this article was edited in an unbiased manner then citing Times of Israel (a source cited already 3 times and when historically unreliable sources like Al Jazeera are cited 27x) would not have been a problem. Moreover, I do not think that the other editors who were objecting to the inclusion of the point on other grounds, would have considered this steelmanning if I provided articles from CNN or BBC. One of them literally says: "Even Al Jazeera reported the approval of reopening Erez crossing by the Israeli cabinet, but until such plan is actually carried out, I am hesitant to add them to the article."

(3) Is this the bit when intention was assigned before it was confirmed in line 19. If so, that's different than demanding another source for literally an officially declared decision on the Eretz and Ashdod opening.

(4) So adding the IDF Investigation results is admirable and shows you are probably one of the few or only neutral EC editors who tries to maintain a semblance of balance to the article. But unfortunately, this too proves my point. Look at the next section. It's titled "Response to IDF Investigations". You have to admit that this is a tad odd. The section is titled "Investigations", which to the naive reader suggests a section about the details about the facts of what happened. There are five investigations listed: Bellingcat, Al-Jazeera Sanad, BBC, CNN, Haaretz that in one way or another contradict the IDF Investigation. Why is there an additional section that is titled "Response to IDF Investigation", which is filled with irrelevant details like this: "International law scholar [in maritime law!] Douglas Guilfoyle writes that the attack "was almost certainly a war crime." Whether it was a war crime is an important question but how is it relevant to the IDF investigation of what are the facts of what actually happened are and to which this section is presumably responding to? That quote statement is inserted there purely for rhetorical effect. How do you not see this?

(5) I think you are mischaracterizing my position. If you read my original post , I very carefully disclaimed: "These EC editors are not monolithic but the disagreements are between foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Israel activists and the relatively restrained anti-Israel activists." I consider the proposal to rename the article to massacre as an example of the kind of edits advocated by the former faction. It seems there are two supporters with Sameboat being the other one - if I understand what the heck he means in his comment correctly. The smarter anti-Israel faction votes it down because it is such an unhinged and outrageous proposal that I think they realize that it will likely attract unwanted attention to what is happening with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Wikipedia.

So I see very clearly what is happening and I hope you would as well.

P.S. One last point on this is that in assessing systemic bias, it's important to look at not just what makes it into the article but also what doesn't make it into the article and why. And my criticism is geared toward the second based on reading other people's suggested edits and my own personal experience with making suggested edits and the kinds of reactions they received. Again, see my original post with examples. Bradley1980 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley1980, I’m not going to address all of that. It would cost me more time and effort than I can spare. The purpose of your talk page access is for you to appeal your block.

@Starship.paint Regarding the stickers there is a misunderstanding. You are talking about my earlier point about the WCK markings not being visible to drone operators. I thought you were referring to the suggested edit on Israeli Countermeasures to which you responded that the ToI source was not reliable. There I was citing a story that one of the Reactions to the WCK tragedy is that future aid convoys will get "special stickers that are visible to thermal cameras from drones". In the earlier edit I used a different language calling the actual markings "vehicle logos" and I got confused by your use of the word "stickers", which I used in my Reactions suggestion. That word appears nowhere in the article, instead I think you edited it with the word "markings". If you said markings instead of stickers it would have avoided the confusion. But thanks for including it.

You seem like a smart guy so it bothers me that you deny the obvious with such matter-of-factness. Ask yourself if you weren't the editor, would that IDF investigations section even been included? The balancing content should not depend on one person. If the article was balanced than there would have been lots of people clamoring to add details - not one guy fighting his way to include the bare minimum to achieve balance. But I genuinely think that they don't find it obvious that a neutral viewpoint requires covering both sides of a disputed event. I suspect that they believe it is tantamount to giving some noxious dictator the opportunity to present his side. This suspicion is based on the kinds of rhetoric used in the Talk page of the article. The reason I am trying to convince you, and anyone else reading this page, of this is because I believe more people should speak up against this bias.

So I guess I am not very keen on rejoining Wikipedia as an editor. My experience is that it is obviously biased for some articles and policed with a very heavy hand. My ban says I violated ECR guidelines. I think this refers to that I reverted a change even though I am not an EC editor - I think. But the rules also say "The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." Nothing I posted violated the exceptions listed on the page. So in my mind I was reverting an unjustified deletion of my edit suggestion. You seem to say the ban was also because the content of the post was assuming bad faith. Even if it was, I don't think a permanent ban is appropriate if no warning has been given and the infraction is relatively minor. Permanent bans are for much more severe violations such as repeated vandalism and disruptive behavior. Moreover, this same administrator who imposed the ban, has not responded to me or provided any details of what part of ECR I violated, which just reinforced my belief that this is not a person that will treat me fairly no matter what I say or do. So if I do decide that it's worth my time to return I will likely appeal via arbitration. But then again, even if I am restored, what will be done about the political bias issue. That's why I think it might be just worth it to walk away. Bradley1980 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walk away, then. Your edit request to add a bias disclaimer, containing personal attacks, was disruptive and not minor. Your lack of good faith is also disruptive. Many people are biased - we have to learn how to work with them within the community norms. Good day to you. starship.paint (RUN) 09:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint I think your use of the English language is quite expansive. I don't think you understand what the term "personal attack" means. It means you are attacking a specific person's character or appearance without any evidence. I attacked a category of malicious editors who are interested in pushing a particular point of view, violating NPV policy, and most importantly I went to great lengths to document the evidence for my charge. I used emotive language to refer to this category of people (not specific editors) but I really think it was justified because it diminishes trust in the content. If people don't trust us, the whole project becomes worthless. People who undermine trust in Wikipedia are doing catastrophic damage. This is really really important! I was not simply using bad language willy-nilly. I probably should have asked for the standard neutrality disputed label, which alerts readers to potential bias, instead of the big red letters.

You also don't understand the concept of "good faith". It means lacking sincerity in one's actions or speech. Do you think I have an ulterior motive in pointing out the bias and don't sincerely believe there is bias? I spent a lot of time documenting that there is clear and convincing bias. You don't rebut any of the points and just continue to assert I lack good faith. It's very annoying and ironic that you say that it is I "who chooses to see what I want to see". Maybe you should show this talk page and comments (now archived) to someone you trust and ask them if they think there is clear bias or not.

Lastly, for something to be disruptive, it has to severely impede the order of business. How did my edit request, which was one bullet point among many disrupt the editing of the page? I simply wanted to start a discussion on the bias question and hence improve the page and perhaps get other editors to reflect on the way they behave themselves and the double standards they use! This discussion would have been like any other discussion and would not have disrupted anything! Anyone could have been free to just ignore it. How sensitive and authoritarian does one have to be to consider a talk page comment request to be "disruptive" to the working of the page. The word "disruptive" is reserved for people deleting and vandalizing and preventing editors from operating. My post did nothing of the sort. Get a grip, my gosh!

I am glad you finally admit that there may be biased people. I agree that this is inevitable. The issue is that the quantity of anti-Israel editors on this page is so great and so overwhelming that it is pointless to work with them because they simply overwhelm you with non-sequitur excuses to not include the changes that are proposed. As a non-EC editor I am not able to rebut their nonsense directly either, as they cross it out citing ECR, so it's a very heavy lift. If you still don't get it, there is not much more I can say, without sounding repetitive, I am afraid. Bradley1980 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read

WP:DE. It is more than what you think it is. There are not so many regular editors on the WCK drone strikes article talk page. Maybe 10. It is pretty obvious who you were talking about. That’s personal enough for me, probably personal enough for an admin. Here’s the issue about good faith. Recognise that reasonable people may disagree. You have one way of thinking. Others have another. Thus, disagreement. That’s where good faith should come in. You can think that they are all terribly biased, or you can try to come to an agreement. starship.paint (RUN) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Look, I did not personally attack anyone. I am not responsible for subjective interpretations; I am only responsible for what I actually wrote, which was to criticize a category of behavior that is extremely harmful. I did not attack specific editors and if an admin interpreted it that way, it is completely subjective and they have no basis for it at all. If this was an actual court, this would never stand.

The other point you keep not getting for some reason is that I tried to play by the rules from the beginning and only after I had the repeated negative experiences did I resort to the post. You make it seem like the first thing I did is post that bias edit. I began my editing by posting three discussion topics. They were largely ignored. I then posted three edit requests. They were first ignored then rejected for completely ridiculous reasons. The other point that you forget is that because of ECR there is a huge asymmetry in power between EC editors like you and new editors like me. I cannot just "work with the community" or just "try to come to an agreement". I cannot have a normal conversation with the EC editors because they delete my comments! If they reject the comment for a ridiculous reason I literally cannot even respond. You are completely oblivious to this point. The problem here is empathy that you seem to lack because you view everything from the perspective on an EC editor that has a lot more room to "work with the community". Bradley1980 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not ECR, edit for 30 days and accumulate 500 edits legitimately. ECR is meant for you to gain experience of how Wikipedia works and what the community norms are, so that when you enter a highly charged topics, you do not break community norms and you edit constructively. You didn't do so. ECR was exactly meant to stop disruption from inexperienced users like you, so you were supposed to gain experience in other areas first. starship.paint (RUN) 01:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint I don't think you are following me as you still have it backwards. I did not break community norms because I was inexperienced hence justifying the need for ECR. I followed community norms, as I just explained, and it is because of ECR I was forced to "break norms".

I don't have the time to get ECR status by editing 500x. Besides, all the interesting topics are deemed "controversial" and locked for ECR editors. By the way, I don't actually oppose this policy and I can absolutely understand the need for it. But I think the part about crossing out responses on talk pages not even editing itself, should be applied loosely and the book should only be thrown at truly disruptive bad-faith actors.

But the larger issue again is that you are assuming that reason and appeal to logic and evidence can resolve disagreements. I am not so sure that's how it works, at least for these "controversial topics". People can come up with insane excuses and simply overpower you if there is enough such people. Best example of that is the Eretz crossing discussion. It is no longer just an announced decision. There are literally trucks using it now according to ToI and CNN. Its opening was a direct consequence of the WCK drone strike. Yet multiple editors (including you) chose to not put it in for reasons such as we don't know if it will happen but even if it does "we don't know if the consequences would be positive". Don't you think it's odd that all the newspapers include it but Wikipedia does not. If some elementary school kid wanted to read up on the WCK strike event and relied solely on the Wikipedia article, he would be literally deprived of this basic incontrovertible fact! If a historian were to write an account of the Israel-Hamas war, they will likely trace the opening of Eretz to the WCK strike but it's not in Wikipedia. Why is it not there? Because of the ideological preponderance of the editors of the page who are worried that it will undermine the narrative that Israel is using starvation as a weapon and that the drone strike was deliberate. It's that simple my friend and it's very sad because it misinforms the public and undermines Wikipedia's key purpose! Bradley1980 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing out responses was legitimate per restrictions on the topic area, regardless on your opinion on it. If you can't get local consensus, you can seek community-wide consensus through

WP:RFC, but you have to be extended confirmed first. Regarding Eretz, you didn't provide international sources when I asked you to. Now, you complain. Also, when you proposed adding Eretz, the status reported in ToI was that Israel will open Eretz. Since then, perhaps Eretz really has been opened, but nobody has presented that information yet. Perhaps every editor of the page has not seen this information. But no, you assume that the non-addition must be because of ideological preponderance of the editors of the page. This is exactly why you are incompatible with editing this topic on Wikipedia. I am afraid my efforts here are fruitless. starship.paint (RUN) 02:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Starship.paint No, you are missing the whole point and have an annoying tendency to mischaracterize what other people say and ignore points. This is why it's so frustrating editing because of this kind of insane behavior.

As I said previously, there was no need to provide international sources because ToI was already included as a valid source and cited 3x in the article! Your request for international sources was an example of a double-standard. It's exactly what I am talking about! You earlier said you were trying to help me by steelmaning my argument but as I explained, there was no need to do that if we are to be consistent. And again, other editors found additional sources including Al Jazeera but said it was irrelevant because what mattered was the consequences.

Yes, I believe the decision to open it was supposed to be included. That was enough because other mere decisions are documented in the article. Since then, it has been opened but it was still not included. Yes, I am assuming people keep up with the news on a page they edit. But my whole point was that the reason for excluding was that it was irrelevant if Eretz was opened or not! The ideological preponderance is based on the reasons they gave in their own words. Go and read the page! They say things like "...most RS indicate that it matters not what Israel is saying or doing but what the results are...". Are you pretending that this is a reasonable objection to keep it.

I think the good faith norm is blinding you to something that is literally in front of you. Ask yourself, if a pack of partisan hacks were editing something (on a different issue - say US politics), how would you tell? You programmed yourself to always see good faith. So you would not be able to tell if people are taking advantage of you. It is very reasonable to assume good faith at first, but as evidence accumulates to the contrary you should change your mind accordingly. Bradley1980 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My insane behaviour? Very well. I actually do edit American politics, another controversial area, have been editing there since 2016. I have not been sanctioned in either that area or Israel/Palestine, which I started editing probably 2023. That should indicate how I am within the bounds of community norms especially in controversial topic areas. Goodbye! starship.paint (RUN) 03:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint Yes, if you are going to have a discussion with someone, you need to respond to the actual arguments they make and not simply restate your own points repeatedly. With a few exceptions you do not engage with the points I bring up; instead you simply repeat the same thing over and over again like a bot. Reread our thread. For example, in your very response to the previous message, you did not respond to my point about good faith being abused and instead stated how well you comply with community norms. Congratulations! But so what, who cares? It has nothing to do with the point I brought up. This kind of response with non-sequiturs is very common in Talk pages and is another reason I don't have an appetite for editing. For one of my flaws is that I do not suffer fools gladly. Instead of requiring 500 edits, I wish they required a logic class to be an EC Editor.

But forgive me for indulging in some more "bad faith", I think there may be something else that is going on here. I suspect that you are so enamored with your status as a "veteran editor" that you think there is nothing a new editor can teach you and your job is to lecture them about how the system works. Well, unfortunately the system does not work as well as you think. I have outlined specific examples which you don't want to address. Instead you obnoxiously imply that I am just disgruntled because I did not get my way in an edit request. I have been very patient with you, but let me state this. If you want to address my specific points on their merits with intelligent counter-points please go ahead, but if you want to provide canned responses then you are wasting both of our time and I suggest you do something else! Bradley1980 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to win a debate. I was here to help you get unblocked if you wish. Your block reason: ECR violations, indef until they demonstrate an understanding of what is allowed and commit to following that. Turning you towards that goal (if you wanted) is productive, that's why I only provided selective answers in pursuit of that goal. Answering all of your arguments, with no progress on the block, is not productive, as I am not performing for any external audience, and I have many better things to do both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia. Toodles! starship.paint (RUN) 01:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a disingenuous response! You told me at least 3 times that I should stay away from editing and I expressed an unwillingness to want to get back to editing because the overwhelming bias issue will remain. Many of your posts are not just ECR-related so you are clearly doing more than that. Anyway, as I said, if you don't want to discuss the bias issue, please do something else with your time. Bradley1980 (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]