User talk:Expectant of Light

Expectant of Light, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Expectant of Light! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Liz (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge Invite

Hello Expectant of Light. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the participants.

If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by:

{{subst:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge Invite (1)|~~~~}}

Thanks,
Mhhossein ^talk 06:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Expectant of Light, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Background and causes of the Iranian Revolution and elsewhere have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create this article?

Hi man! I found you at English Wiki. Can you create Independence, freedom, the Islamic Republic for Iran's national motto? Benyamin-ln (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benyamin-ln: Hi! Sounds like an interesting topic. I may when I get some free time. --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mosul liberation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mosul liberation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosul liberation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ansh 666 20:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Your addition to Mosul liberation has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Ah, bad that I'm again warned for copy-right violations but I wanted to say these are not intentional. As for photos they didn't mention in the caption the photographers' name so I couldn't supply that info in the descriptions but since they are taken by photographers working for the publisher Tasnim News Agency and the publisher publishes them under Creative Commons, I thought it was ok! Was it? --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't check regarding the images, as they were deleted at the Commons, and I am not an administrator on that wiki. You will have to visit that website and discuss your concerns with the admin that deleted the photos. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Expectant of Light. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Houthi deniel

Hi We couldn't write that the Houthis have denied because there are no source. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I read that in a source but haven't got the time to find out where I read it. And I didn't restore that either since you objected! --Expectant of Light (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That user have replaced "saudi aligned" ny "saudi state" without proof. And he have accused contributors for having conflict of interest. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, also per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, a reliable source could be biaised. So what is your opinion about his tag in the article ? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2017 Lebanon–Saudi Arabia dispute

On 19 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2017 Lebanon–Saudi Arabia dispute, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Saudi Arabia's government has been accused of detaining Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, following his abrupt resignation while in Saudi Arabia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2017 Lebanon–Saudi Arabia dispute. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2017 Lebanon–Saudi Arabia dispute), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Your recent editing history at 2017–18 Iranian protests shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Peter Dunkan (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Dunkan: Before accusing editors of edit war make sure whether they have violated the three-revert rule or that they are reverting in good faith or not. As for the photos of protests, they are verifiable and reported by other sources. You can't also accuse of bias by your personal speculation. We only reflect what the sources say. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Expectant_of_Light reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 05:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. zzz (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Signedzzz: My reverts were in good-faith and explained and this section has been discussed on the talkpage. The onus on you is to explain why you oppose inclusion of sourced and engage in reverts. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been opposed on talk. The onus is on you to gain consensus. You will be blocked if you continue edit-warring, regardless of "good faith". zzz (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Signedzzz: I've been not opposed to include material. Two of us support inclusion. The other refused to comment. I warned you for edit-waring! Be wary of boomerang! --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Two of us support for inclusion". Not true. WP:Competence is required. PS even if dozens of editors were supporting you, you would still be blocked for edit-warring. See WP:3RR zzz (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Signedzzz: So far you've been engaged in edit-warring in bad-faith while ignoring the discussion in which two of us clearly supported inclusion of material. The other has refused to comment so far. WP:Competence is required definitely. But you seem to lack good-faith to accurately represent the talkpage discussion and accuse your party. --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I will not accuse my party without good faith, thank you. Please stop pinging me. zzz (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Signedzzz: So explain why you removed sourced material even after your rationale for doing so was refuted! It's clearly you who are edit-warring and you only need to make another reversion in bad-faith to violate the 3-revert rule and invite possible sanctions on your account! --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss on talk. zzz (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4R at 2017–18 Iranian protests

Hi Expectant of Light. In the spirit of what I told you yesterday, I am not going to add a new report, but you are again over 3 reverts at that article. The reverts are as follows (UTC time):

"Undid revision 819072512 by Icewhiz (talk) No such consensus yet. Please don't engage in edit-war. The content are totally verifiable regardless of what you think of Iranian media." Today at 6:17 AM
"Discuss on the talkpage before changing sourced, verifiable content." Today at 6:11 AM
"Undid revision 818918862 by (talk) already discussed. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2017%E2%80%9318_Iranian_protests#A_lot_of_critical_analyses_on_US/Israel/KSA_support_for_the_unrest" Yesterday at 9:51 AM
"Undid revision 818917214 by Signedzzz (talk) These are nowhere covered in the page and they include analyses. And there are more! Don't remove sourced material." Yesterday at 9:42 AM

Please be more careful in the future. Best regards. Dr. K. 07:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.K.: Oh, thanks! I didn't notice I was reaching the 3rr over the 24-hour threshold. And these were also different reverts. But thanks for notifying me anyway! As you see we are deeply involved in the talk and I expected others to also reach consensus before making major changes. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good to know. By the way, 3RR is any revert, irrespective of if the material is the same or not. All the best. Dr. K. 08:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Your recent editing history at 2017–18 Iranian protests shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Dunkan: There is a talk page discussion on this and I was reverting by citing the talk and left a new comment on talk too! Whereas you have not participated in the discussion and reverted without any explanation! So you appear to be the one edit-warring but yes people can coldly stick to the 3rr technicality but violate the soul of Wikipedia guidelines! --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: You would have demonstrated some good-faith if you had considered the nature of my reverts as well as my response to Peter Dunkan above! --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are over 3RR in the past 24Hrs even without Bret Stephens - which I agree was on-consensus. And you were over 3RR on 7 Jan (as Dr. K pointed out to you - and I noticed as well at the time, but held off from reporting).Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP ds alert - Jan 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

@Icewhiz: Disingenuous! Provide evidence for where I have called a spade a spade! --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a DS alert - it merely provides information of the DS regime regarding BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP - applies to Talk pages as well

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests, you may be blocked from editing. This diff as well as a few others are unsourced defamation/libel regarding a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Instead of continuing to dirt my talkpage by your undue tags, take a look at War hawk definition and then explain how I'm not calling a spade a spade! Otherwise your warnings may be read as unfounded accusations and bring about WP:BOOMERANG. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You applied a few others labels. For instance calling someone a "zionist" is quite the charge in some part of the world - though that's perhaps a spade. Justifying "eccentric" is more difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Aden (2018)

Hi Please check the news. I think we should create an article. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Douma chemical attack

Please stop your disruptive editing.

This page has a 1 revert rule, and you already broke it. Just be careful. 18:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LylaSand (talk • contribs)

Thanks! But I didn't break it since my next edits were making subtle improvements to an existing content not reverting past edits. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this was a revert of this. It was also sloppy - I just removed the BBC journo, you added ot back in with the Russian response - duplicating a sentence twice.Icewhiz (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA violations

Quds Day is under ARBPIA restrictions. You broke both 1RR and probably third bullet as well ("If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit"). Revert yourself or I'll report you.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reverted anything. I made my case in talk and proceeded with the right edit. If you have a case to support your favored version make your case in the talk page and I will gladly consider applying your edits. It seems that you want to game the ARBPIA rule instead of proceeding with consensus building process. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ali Khamenei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Battle of Al Hudaydah

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Battle of Al Hudaydah, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jun/13/yemen-port-city-hodeidah-panic-fear-saudi-led-forces, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Battle of Al Hudaydah and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Battle of Al Hudaydah, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Battle of Al Hudaydah. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Battle of Al Hudaydah with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Battle of Al Hudaydah saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Matt Heard (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned multiple copyright violations from the article. Copyvio was found from the following sources:

Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law and the copyright policy of this website to do so. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't quote your source in your edit summary, like you did here. It's unnecessary, because anyone can click on the link and read the source themselves. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

I really admire the way that you handled the feedback about your contributions to Battle of Al Hudaydah. You're awesome!

Matt Heard (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Heard: Oh, thank you! Yeah! Boldness combined with grace often works well! :) And thank you for your awesome goat! --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say the same. Thanks for being very civilized even when a discussion gets "heated". Cheers! :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warning. I am discussing it in the talk page. But you do seem to side with a partisan user with a history of sanctions for disruptive behavior and edit-warring. Disingenuous! --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Report

[1]--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ad hominem. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments

Hi,

I didn't want to continue the discussion on the WikiProject talk page, but there absolutely is an issue with:

I don't think Icewhiz (Redacted) can view Iran as accurately and without bias that I do.
But I have nothing against nationality or ethnicity of the user in question. I was talking about political bias resulting from strong existential hostility between two countries. That's about it.

The thing is that you're saying that you're not biased, they are. And, you were relating it to their nationality/background. Please don't do that again. Like I said, someone was blocked indefinitely for these kind of comments... and they didn't see what was wrong with them either.

And, please no WP:NPA. If you stay focused on just the points of the discussion - and not mention anything at all about anyone personally, their right to have an opinion, whether you find it bogus, etc. that would go a long way towards better relations. That would be great! Thanks! (I've been told that it would be better for me to be "peachy" rather than "preachy" some times. And, I am sure that's true.... I'm working on it. Sorry that this is more preachy than peachy.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: I appreciate and in fact I'm sure of your good faith. So thanks for being peachy or preachy. Yet I am sad to see that my comments that basically boil down to my concern with WP:BIAS is being interpreted as being personal. WP:BIAS has been one of my biggest frustrations with Wikipedia. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. If you stay focused on the sources... and not the people... and find reliable sources for your key points, I think you'll have better luck. If there is hostility between two countries, it's probably best not to qualify one-side as being biased and the other side as not being biased. We all have bias... but a lot of us here try to focus just on what we're finding from solid, reliable sources... at the exclusion of our own knowledge. Tricky to do, but when you can, that's really great and I have found that I've learned a lot that way. When I try to accept only what I am understanding to be true, I miss things and invariably have to learn, be able to summarize a dissenting opinion, and fix the article. That's one of the reasons that I like to come into new articles from time-to-time, I don't have preconceived notions that I have set aside.

Thanks for being understanding!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I aspire to be a free-thinker myself. But representing a viewpoint that is minority among average Wikipedians is difficult. I found some sources to have a good quality on their own but are being discredited for only coming from Iran. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to the free-thinkers! I love that term and haven't heard it in awhile. Thanks, Expectant of Light! Hang in there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information

Hi, please do not speculate as to the national identity of other editors. Doing so is a violation of our policy on outing and further violations will lead to an indefinite block. Unless you can tell by looking at someone's user page that it says something like "Hi my name is Tony, and I'm a dual citizen of the United States and Canada." you should not speculate as to where someone lives or their national origin. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric

Since you took "rhetoric" as a personal insult, I thought I'd provide the definition. I'm sorry if you thought I was insulting you, that was not my point at all. My point is that you're talking about a lot of things related to the topic, but not providing sources that would be good/reliable to use.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Your are one of the most judicious people I've conversed with online! And no! I didn't take that as an insult but I thought you may recognize that your statements may be be deemed demeaning from my view when you continually dismiss my points as rheotric, whereas I was pointing, by citing sources, to control and repression in media outlets that are not normally perceived as controlled simply because their control can't be captured by the narrow methodology of the sources that blacklist Iran for controlling media. In that sense, there's no independent media in the world. So looking for "independent" sources to determine reliable sources in Iran is basically absurd and it leads to complete exclusion of media that are controlled, regulated, or somehow affiliated with the Iranian government, which in turn leads to exclusion of major views on Iran, in violation of WP:NPOV. --Expectant of Light (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have made interesting points that would have made for an interesting essay. The proof, though, is in what gets published and whether it is deemed as independent or free thought. Or, whatever words you would prefer to use.

You are basically talking conceptually. I'm trying to get down to actual sources that could be used. I was trying to help you move the conversation to a more effective conclusion. And I am feeling unheard and that you think that there's bias behind this.

As an FYI for background, I worked on a few articles about Donald Trump on sensitive topics and we had to identify sources that would be acceptable by the people contributing to the article. More than half of the sources in the article were rejected. And, I reworked that article with sources that we all agreed upon. Getting to what is considered a reliable source can be tricky... and for an article about an opposition party / terrorist group in Iran it's especially tricky.

Unless there can be movement on identifying acceptable sources to run by the group, I think it will likely result in the decision to just use Iranian sources for regime positions. I don't think it's fair to say that your and Mhhossein's votes outweigh everyone else's votes. It goes against the nature of consensus-building, which is fundamental to Wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Today I logged in and was shocked to see getting blocked on really fallacious charges. I was not around to respond on ANI before the block. I read the responses to your Oppose ban in ANI and I see that two editors have clearly falsified my positions and put words into my mouth to accuse me of anti-Semitism! First you should know that I come from a country where anti-Semitism is banned by state law, has the biggest Jewish community after Israel, with Jews living safely, peacefully and happily here. See [2]. Moreover, as a Muslim, we recognize Jewish faith as a Divine religion therefore in that sense we are in fact philo-semitic! So let's dissect the fallacies by which I was banned.

I never said "because someone is Jewish their vote shouldn't count!" This is an egregious lie by CaroleHenson whose bias against me became fully apparent here in Iran:Project portal. Anti-Semitism is sometimes used as a framing tactic when it comes to legitimate criticism of the state of Israel for its gross human rights violations!! But in my case, I was talking about Icewhiz, who appears to have strong pro-Israeli biases and have sided with positions against Islamic Republic of Iran in almost every content dispute that he has engaged in. And I said what I now regret, but it was never about him being a Jew! I said since Iran and Israel have been hell bent on destroying one another, Icewhize carrying an obviously pro-Israeli bias, can't be a neutral party to a dispute resolution about Iran especially on a topic like People's Mujahidin of Iran, an organization with a terrorist past, that is alleged to have had ties with Israeli intelligence Mossad! Now what's anti-semitic in stating someone's political biases may bias him in a discussion about MKO and Iranian government?! Please read the link to that discussion!
The other anti-Semitic canard leveled against me was by Hijiri88. First he was not following this ANI according to his/her own admission here. But his sense of anti-Antisemitism came from my inadvertent reference to Robert Faurisson here on a dispute resolution discussion we've been having in Project:Iran. Context is we were discussing bias of Corporate media versus media in Iran that are regulated by the government as well as academic freedom. My argument was as per Corporate media, bias can come from sources other than political control. As for breach of academic freedom, I was intending to cite the story of an American-Jewish Professor Norman Finkelstein, from a Holocaust survivor family whose tenure was denied and effectively fired from university because he dared to point out fallacies in work of a pro-Israeli writer that he showed had falsified the story of Arab-Israel in favor of Israel. Read the full story in his page. But as if the confusion in that ANI was not already high, a recall error on my part further complicated things. When wanting to recall the name of Finkelstein, I cited another academic, Faurisson with a similar-sounding name who also got fired from academia but for a different reason. The two scholars also just happen to be both pro-Palestinian! So several similarities despite an important difference, so I basically confused them! I was clearly talking about an American professor not French! And Finkelstein is a Holocaust survivor whereas Fuarisson is a Holocaust-denier! I immediately explained this error in Iran Protal, and nobody accused me of anti-Semtitism including Icewhiz. We were having a dignified discussion on political freedom and media control. We were citing examples to support our case! Finkelstein was my example but my stupid recall error, provoked the knee jerk reaction of Hijiri88 who came in calling me "a disgusting individual" on ANI! I immediately realized my mistake had given him a very wrong opinion of me. I explained the thing here [3]. I told him I had many academics in the top of my head and I had confused the two for their similar sounding names and their similar fates. But he couldn't or didn't want to believe me. Like I said nobody else accused me of this since they were familiar with my background. I don't know whether you believe that it was just a recalling error on my part or like Hijri, say that because I inadvertently cited a Holocaust denier I must be anti-Semitic whereas like I explained early, accusing me of anti-Semitism is the last thing on Earth one can do!

I realize I was caught really in a heated dispute with other editors with strong opinions so my smallest mistakes could invoke their prejudices. Were I ever knew about WP:ASPERSION I would have been more careful not to be misinterpreted when pointing out policy-violations and biases of other users. But if you really read the ANI in full and look at my discussions for which I have received positive feedback, you will acknowledge that I was innocent of these charges. It all started a month ago when I intended to bring an edit warring by Stefka and Pahlevon on PMI/MKO page to a stable conclusion but Stefka's accusation that three of us were "ganging on him" when I reported his disruptive behavior in a past ANI developed into this mess. Please read my bullet list diffs, under the third vote on ANI and preferably the whole thing to get a full picture. This was really a decision that you should have not taken. You must have waited for my response. Thanks! --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't level an antisemitic canard against you: you leveled an antisemitic canard against "the Jews" (and I'm not even Jewish). And you didn't make a stupid recall editor -- you continued to call Faurisson a "liberal professor" who was subjected to "violence" for his beliefs even after "retracting" your original defense of him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: This ban is allowing users to talk behind my back in ANI including yourself. I don't know why I should be kicked out of Wiki like this in the middle of an ANI discussion where I was involved. But like I said my reference to Faurisson was inadvertent but as for my later explanation that he got physically attacked for his views, you have to look into Faurisson affair, sections Petition signed by Chomsky and Chomsky's response which mention this. Pinging @Kingsindian: to also read my defense since s/he also recognized this pure injustice . --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My response here explains my rationale for blocking. I’m seeing no reason at this point to unblock, but this is just a regular admin block, so you’re free to appeal using the instructions above. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System, TonyBallioni, Kingsindian, and Mhhossein: Excuse me that I ping some of you again. But I need to clarify certain things before I appeal my ban. People especially @Hijiri88: are constantly misrepresenting me and my opinions on ANI. First before peddling around accusations of anti-Semitism, people need to look at Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government#Objections_to_characterizing_criticism_of_Israel_as_anti-Semitism. It's been a controversial term with a controversial definition since it's been highly politicized. It's been often used to repress legitimate criticism or as a scare tactic to force people into silence. This is exactly how I'm being accused of it here. As for Iran, anti-Semitism in the sense of racial or religious hatred or discrimination against Jews, is banned by state law which recognizes Jews a legitimate religion and racial minority with political rights. In Iran there's also a clear distinction made between Zionism and Judaism. The first is banned the second is endorsed and respected. However like I said since the term anti-Semitism is vastly politicized, Iranian government doesn't necessary agree with what else is anti-Semitic or not. Among them is Holocaust denial. Some groups in Iran believe that criminalizing research on the Holocaust or revisionist views about it, goes against freedom of thought and speech that are highly cherished in the West. And this is exactly the opinion expressed by Noam Chomsky in Faurisson affair. In fact some critiques compare the Faurisson affair with the Galileo affair. The bottom line, my inadvertent reference to Faurisson makes no indication of anti-Semitism since Holocaust denial in and of itself doesn't constitute anti-Semitism, especially when coming from a Liberal French professor with no indication of racial motivations against Jews, unless you in Wikipedia want to side with a certain political party or government on what is and is not anti-Semitism. We are all entitled to our own opinion in Wikipedia and as human beings, so do I as an Iranian Muslim. Secondly, as for my definition of "powerful interests" or "dominant narrative", depending on the context, it can be the Israel lobby, the Jewish lobby (controversial), any concerted effort by Jewish interests against a critique or opponent, and the mainstream Zionist narrative of history (like the one partly challenged by Norman Finkelstein). --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did I misrepresent? You defended a Holocaust denier, and then when called out on it continued to do so, and you repeatedly referred to Jews (and those who think the Holocaust was a thing that happened) as "powerful interests", and since your block have just been using your talk page as a forum to claim that Muslims in general and Iranians in particular somehow can't be antisemitic, and to attack me and others. You will not be unblocked as long as this continues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Hijiri88 is clearly pushing his scaremongering against me by stating ridiculous opinions. there are people out there in the real world who would be shocked and appalled if they saw English Wikipedia call Jews and Zionists "powerful interests" and "dominant interests! Wow! What does that mean? You mean Jews or Zionists have no interest or political influence? Or Isreal lobby doesn't exist? Or that Jewish magnates have no economic clout? Or that they don't at least sometime use it for political advocacy? Or there's no such a thing as ADL "Stalinist thought police organization" to use Chomskey's description? Sure people can keep me blocked for not buying into Hijiri's Zionist world of political correctness. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play dumb. "The Jews control the media/government/academic/banks/whatever" is a very old and well-established antisemitic meme, and you were deliberately playing into it when you (repeatedly!) referred to Jews as "powerful interests". Nishidani (talk · contribs) and others, including those on the "other side", will tell you how utterly ridiculous the phrase Hijiri's Zionist world of political correctness is, and that I'm all too happy to criticize Israeli violence, state terror and distortion of the historical narrative, and will argue against those who want English Wikipedia to be a mouthpiece for the Israeli government; but talking about "the Jews" as a "powerful interest" is not the same thing, and doing so while (repeatedly, and unapologetically) defending a Holocaust-denier makes it really obvious that you don't care about Israeli state terror and historical distortion, but are motivated simply by plain, old, classical, pre-WWII antisemitism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How shall we talk then if we want to talk about Jews residing outside Israel who are strongly pro-Israel? Zionists? It appears that you have problem with that too! And you don't have to cast my comments in "Pre-WII antisemitism". You have already done everything you could to smear me! That's enough! I don't know about the entry you linked. But you can guess to every conspiracy theory there could be grains of non-exaggerated truth. When you have a Jewish author literally bragging about how "Jews totally run the Hollywood" and that "I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.", [4] , then probably you can't only complain about those anti-Semites who come up with conspiracy theories. Perhaps who need to ask Joel Stein to keep their mouth shot when boasting about their control. You can also then explain the reasons behind USA's strong unconditional support for Israeli terrorism that you are also angry about. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think with any controversial topic, including Holocaust denial, you should take extra care that your comments on talk can be supported by reliable sources. If you have misspoken, which I think you most likely did here, you should apologize rather than double down on it. I think editors here are wary of rhetoric that "collectivizes responsibility" or "collectivizes identity" based on race/national origin/sexual orientation/any protected class. It's fairly plain if you are discussing AIPAC or pro-Israel interests what you mean, however, if you begin to call this "Jewish interests" editors tend to get upset. Not everyone who supports Israel is Jewish and not all Jews support Israel. If you also then connect these nebulous "Jewish interests" to the firing of a professor for Holocaust-denial related speech, editors get really upset, and that's what happened here. I think the best course would be to apologize because this was careless, rather then doubling down by comparing the Faurisson affair with Galileo.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate and take your advise while I also think there have been adequate indications in my comments that show I don't collectivize peoples. And this has been already made all the more clear by explanation of my and Iran's positive attitude towards Jews as a religious and ethnic minority which however doesn't necessarily mean I (or any other party) agree with political interests of so many varied Jewish/Israeli/Zionist groups around the world. As for Faurisson case, I am not doubling down but just rejecting all the racist things that Hijjiri is reading into that inadvertent reference. But to his displeasure, two Jewish professors e.g.e Chomsky and Finkelstein happen to just agree with me when it comes to academic freedom for Faurisson or critique of the Zionist discourse. For sources backing my statements, please look at Faurrison affair I linked above, the sections on Chomsky's response. Also look into other links I shared. Lastly, if apology resolves things, I gladly apologize as well as turn a blind eye on Hijiri's rude remark on me in ANI for which he has not apologized. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, continuing to refer to my calling your Holocaust denial what it was (disgusting) as "rude" is not "turning a blind eye". You need to drop this immediately (read: two days ago). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't drop your habit of putting words into my mouth! You are amazing at it! I didn't deny the Holocaust. I didn't even comment about it! But you did call me "a disgusting individual" but it was redacted. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You did deny the Holocaust (albeit unintentionally) when you said that someone who was fired for denying the Holocaust was fired for challenging the government-sanctioned propagandistic historical narrative. It was unintentional on your part. But if you had not actually believed it and it had been a simple slip of the tongue based on said Holocaust denier's name being similar to that of someone else, you would have immediately apologized and retracted your original claim in its entirety. You did not: you went on to defend your original mistake as being the result of your reading up on various scholars who challenge the establishment historical narrative, which strongly implies you think that Holocaust denialism is a legitimate historical viewpoint rather than an antisemitic lie. You have never once, even after being blocked, apologized for your antisemitic remarks, or said that the Holocaust actually happened, and the reason you refuse to do so is obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Noam Chomsky said, I don't either reject or endorse what Faurrison had to say on the Holocaust, but I defend his right to say his historical opinions as per freedom of speech. Accept that there's a difference of opinion on this and walk away instead of carrying on your smears. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You can find my words here. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing has really become overly ridiculous! They are blaming me for talking about "the Zionist narrative." Who else's narrative was Finkelstein exposing as fraud? It is interesting that pro-Israeli biases are so strong in the minds of some editors, that even calling a spade a spade is considering anti-Semitic! Btw, I have no problem with them searching my past record for finding something against me unless they want to continue in the habit of twisting my words, disregarding context and misinterpreting my intents. I don't remember any more ridiculous case of witch hunt in my life! And it appears that we just bumped ourselves against the most egregious cased of WP:BIAS in Wiki! Good as an experience! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No: You were blocked for continued defense of a holocaust denier (which you are still doing), personal attacks on editors you perceive to be Israeli, use of anti-Semitic memes (“powerful groups”, which you admitted above meant exactly what I thought it meant), and general disruption in the area because of your clearly deeply held views about Israel and Jews. These actions are entirely incompatible with editing on the English Wikipedia, which is why you were blocked. Anyone who made equivalent comments regarding Iranians or Muslims would be blocked equally fast: your rhetoric is creating a toxic editing environment.

Any potential unblock would be conditional on you avoiding any and all topics related to Israel, Judiaism, Jewishness, Zionism, and anti-Semitism and an agreement never to comment on the personal identity of other editors, real or perceived. If you are fine with these conditions, I would consider an unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @TonyBallioni: You are still accusing me of calling a spade a spade. As for Faurrison, just like Chomsky, I defend his right to freedom of speech without getting fired or physically beaten up for arriving at a different conclusion during his researches however undesirable his conclusions appear to our inherited beliefs or the mainstream. Are you also going to accuse Chomsky of being anti-Semitic? Btw, as for my comments on probable bias of editors, like I said, I realized that could be WP:ASPERSION. Therefore I have apologized several times for that I believe. But probably I also demand an apology from Hijiri for calling me a "disgusting individual". How does he just get away with that? --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 3 August: I gladly apologize as well as turn a blind eye on Hijiri's rude remark on me in ANI for which he has not apologized

20:33, 3 August: But probably I also demand an apology from Hijiri for calling me a "disgusting individual". How does he just get away with that?

Which is it? Do you want me to apologize, or do you turn a blind eye? Anyway, I will not apologize for calling your Holocaust denial and repeatedly referring to Jews as "powerful interests" what it is -- disgusting.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Hijiri’s actions, but yours. This is not about challeging the Zionist narrative: I’m fine with that. This is about your saying that Jewish interests conspire to attack people who challenge it using well-known anti-Semitic language and your personal attacks on editors you perceive to be Israeli or Jewish. So I’ll ask again: are you fine not editing or commenting in the areas I mentioned above, and do you agree not to comment on the perceived identities of other editors? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish interests" in and of itself is also an innocent and neutral term unless someone wants to read into it racist connotations without decent reason. One could argue that to pretend Jews have no interests would be anti-Semitic because the idea can lead to depriving them of their rights. The fact is Jews have interests like every other humans. And they could be susceptible to same errors that other humans are. In fact the AJC's Commentary openly talks about their "Jewish interests". So does AJC. JTA states that they are working to protect their "Jewish interests." And academics have written papers to prove the obvious that Jews have interests and pursue them. And I think I talked about more bias of people and much less their identities. But as per my past apologies, in keeping with WP:ASPERSION I do promise not to talk about people's identities in future. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for not editing in those areas, I think that would be an unfair restriction of my normal Wiki rights/privileges. Whatever area I contribute, I do my best to do it within guidelines, so there must be no problem. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not prepared to unblock you at this time given your response above. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which response? "Jewish interests"? Well, I don't demand you to unblock me. I think there is a lot of negativity going on. I've been clashed against WP:BIAS. But hopefully this case can open some minds on this issue. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox platform, and there is no such thing as free speech on a private website. Your talk page will be revoked if you continue. --Tarage (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It started when we were discussing media bias and academic freedom in WikiProject Iran. I have no interest in soapboxing. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you think bringing up media bias and lack of academic freedom in Europe and North America is relevant to that discussion? How so? And what does any of that have to do with Zionists, Israel, Jews or the Holocaust? It looks more like you just wanted an excuse to complain about how the Jews control the media. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because we've been comparing their bias against Iranian media bias on a controversial topic People's Mujahedin of Iran. In fact other editors also saw the relevance and basically agreed with me. See Seraphim's comment here. And there are allegations that PMI/MKO has collaborated with Israel against Iran in various areas. See their entry. But as for Israel and Zionists, it was only a secondary thing which you did good job to develop into a biggie. We were discussing whether we can use an Iranian academic source on PMI. But it was dismissed on charges that the study was not free or independent. So I raised Finkelstein as an example of lack of academic freedom in the West to show that Western academia are also subject to bias and control when it comes to views that run against the established discourse. The thing is Seraphim like I said also agreed with me and CaroleHenson was just about to condemn him/her for his/her opinion too, see [5] [6]. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't comment about other user's opinions and lump them in with yours at this point. Please let Seraphim System speak for him/herself.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop talking about me, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim did leave a comment above. And do you realize you were and are part of this dispute? --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it and thought it was a good summary of the situation. You haven't followed their advise and are now trying to lump them in with your stated beliefs that got you blocked. That is unfair to them. I am going to ask that the comment be removed and hidden because it sounds like you're not understanding why this is a problem.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I said to him that Chomsky basically agrees with what I think about Faurisson. Btw, Hijiri had alleged that I had mixed Faurrison with otherwise respected academics such as Chomsky, failing to see how in fact Chomsky had sided with Faurisson in the Faurisson affair. As for my block, it is being debated whether it was right or unjust as I believe. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your view is the one attributed to Chomsky by those who attack him, not the view repeatedly expressed by Chomsky himself. Chomsky, for example, rarely uses words related to political factions in the manner that mainstream media do, which apparently led this quote to become a popular meme among Chomsky's enemies, and you echoed the Chomsky boogeyman who doesn't exist when you described Farisson as "a liberal professors btw". You have not, and would not, describe Faurisson's views as "utterly offensive" or write that "even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the Nazis carried out such atrocities is already to lose one's humanity". Chomsky is a great man -- the father of modern linguistics, and a personal hero of mine -- and even were it not for your unapologetic invocation of the idea that "the Jews control the media" your violating BLP by attacking him in this way would be offensive enough for me to want your talk page access revoked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Jews control the media. I quoted their words! Having said that, I don't think there's any way I can convince you since you have thrown WP:GF out of the window in all of this! --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to Admins

I just wanted to say taking any administrative action based on ANI requests on me would be unjust. I've been blocked and I can't participate in the ANI where people like Hijiri continue their slanders against me by false accusations or quoting my posts here out of context. He is the same person who came in and deflected the ANI course by ridiculous charges and calling me "a disgusting individual" [7] and that I have denied the Holocaust whereas I have never commented on the Holocaust. Otherwise, that ANI was coming to a conclusion before he created a fuss over an innocent inadvertent comment of mine on an academic that has been supported by the respected academic Noam Chomsky for having freedom of speech to have a different opinion on the Holocaust. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I won't apply my unblock request while people are talking behind my back in that inconcluded ANI. I just wrote below what the right course of action is. We need to conclude that ANI and have a cool off period until admins can see whether I deserve an unblock. For Tony Ballioni's abrupt block of me in the midst of the ANI complicated things as others also pointed out. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have posted to ANI. I wouldn't have if I hadn't seen your post that I commented about above. For what it's worth, which may not be much, I would have fought just as hard for you if someone said that because of your country of origin your opinion didn't count as much as someone else's... or if someone had tried to lump you in with their opinions without pinging them. I've let you go on and say things about me and not commented because I thought it was better to let things calm down.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past is past and I have apologized several times for that negative impression, even though I expect you as an experienced user to also interpret my comment in the light of WP:BIAS. That's also a policy! Btw, I didn't ping you because I thought it would only further drag the dispute and I didn't say anything bad about you. I wanted to show how Seraphim and I had the same opinion for which you complained about me in ANI but now you accused me of "lumping things together" which is interesting! Things get lumped together when there are many things to address especially in such a messy situation! --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not upset that you didn't ping me. Yes, I know you "wanted to show how Seraphim and I had the same opinion" - that's the problem and that you didn't ping them / link them. I need to call it a day on this topic and just let the cards fall where they may. Good luck.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I ping @Seraphim System: to see if there was a problem. --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Expectant of Light: Hijiri has made the argument that your comment that Faurisson is "a liberal professors [...] who has challenged some aspects of the Holocaust and got physically beaten for it on uni campus" is an an explicit defense of Holocaust denial. You also wrote In fact some critiques compare the Faurisson affair with the Galileo affair (no sources are given for the critiques). It is hard to see how this is not a defense of Faurisson's substantive positions, which is completely outside the scope of the Wikiproject discussion. Once a block is imposed, it is very difficult to challenge on the ground that it was not well-founded. The presumption is that Tony reviewed your editing history and made an independent determination that there was a risk of further disruption to the project. Focusing on Hijiri's comments is not likely to help. I think you should reconsider accepting Tony's unblock proposal. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: Apparently for the first time Faurisson and his lawyer invoked the Galileo comparison. See [8] and [9]. And many others have since made the comparison. See [10], [11], [12]. I should say I don't either endorse or deny statements made in these sources. Likewise I have several times rejected (example) the connection Hijiri tried to make between defending Faurison's right to free speech and endorsing his views on the holocaust. Basically I think like Chomsky on this. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

request

@TonyBallioni: Would you be willing to restore your Oppose vote in ANI? You confirmed that the situation seemed like people ganging up on me and how Stefka and Icewhiz have had misconduct. But Hijiri deflected the entire course by his bogus accusations only to start up a new gang up. I think the best course out of this would be for you to restore your oppose vote, and ask Hijiri to stop his smears, and give people a cool-off period. I have done all I could on my part to amend things by apologies for perceived WP:ASPERSION but Hijiri's intervention messed up everything. I have been accused for having opinions that I back up with sources but a few people are judging me by the kind of biases that we should work to minimize according to WP:BIAS. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And offering a compromise

Even though I have extensively demonstrated above that anti-Semitic charges against me lack any substance, but to further demonstrate my WP:GF, apart from my past apologies for WP:ASPERSION, I may be willing to agree to a temporal (probably one-month) topic ban on Israel and Jewish topics to gain the confidence of the community, even though I don't remember having worked on these topics in the past. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fair enough. This shows Expectant of Light's good faith. I reviewed his TP and I'm seeing he had been collaborating in a very constructive manner on some occasions, so that the users apparently having different POVs had appreciated him and sent him Wikiloves[13]. There, he was called "awesome" and described as "being very civilized even when a discussion gets "heated"."[14] Plus, I'm seeing numerous inputs among them those of Zero0000 and Kingsindian objecting the abrupt action taken by Tony, with the former, who is an admin, commenting on Hijri's attempt at dominating his narration in the discussion. I think that would be fair enough to have uninvolved users/admins review the case with Hijri staying outside. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone already, Mhhossein. You can attack me on the talk page of a blocked user if you want, but don't ping me again. I'm done with this stupid dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an attack, uninvovled users are saying that. Yeah, I see he's blocked and hence you're done. Regards.--Mhhossein ^talk 10:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. This would need to be an indefinite topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quick fact-check of Hijiri's accusations

I thought Hijiri's interference in the ANI and his selective misrepresentation of my opinions may confuse many users in the ANI so just a short fact checking:

His smear campaign against me started when he noticed one of my comments in an ongoing discussion in talk:WikiProject Iran. Aiming to show lack of academic freedom in the West, I had intended to cite the famous Norman Finkelstein's affair. I inadvertently though named Robert Faurisson who is just like Finkelstein an academic, pro-Palestinian with a similar sounding last names and a similar fate but with one caveat: he happens to be a holocaust denier/revisionist historian.
Just like prestigious Jewish American academic Chomsky, though, I believe Faurrison deserved freedom of speech to believe whatever he believes about the Holocaust without getting fired or attacked by mobs -- without me necessarily endorsing his findings on the Holocaust.
Hijiri however came in claiming that since I inadvertently named Faurrison instead of Fikelestein and since just like Chomsky I believed he didn't deserve the treatment he got, I must be a Holocaust denier myself, an anti-Semitic and "a disgusting individual" [15]. To this date he has not apologized for his rude remark that had been redacted.
He continues to frame me by claiming why I call a spade a spade as shown by an editor when talking about "the Zionist narrative," or "Israel lobby" or "Jewish interests" when Jewish organizations themselves talk about it.
Despite all this he didn't refused from continuing putting words into my mouth by claiming that I was a holocaust denier or that I said "Jews run the Hollywood" whereas I was only quoting a Jewish author verbatim, but he claimed that the author was only joking! in that serious opinionated article!!
He must get over this! Things have got overly tense already! I don't even demand an apology from him for all of his accusations. I shall forgive and forget! But just stop dragging this any longer! In fact I'm willing to apologize from him if I unintentionally hurt him by my views! --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past account

@Fitzcarmalan: I help you with your "laziness". Yes, Strivingsoul was my past account which was suspended either for my views or accusations of disruption after I was similarly ganged up on for saying that a book by a former Neo-Nazi must be subject to the same policies of WP:NPOV since most of the book content was cited and pure facts even though some of the author's interpretation of those facts, some his personal views and his past career are highly reprehensible. But I admit it was stupid of me to even touch this guy given his deep notoriety in the West even though there's no Wiki policy that says we can't demand WP:NPOV for books however notorious their authors are. But then what? I apparently still so naive to think that policies or even cited facts can trump deep political biases in the West. So yeah, delete my second account, too! If one day I come with another sockpuppet, people can identity me with the same views unless they change upon my own free research. Peace! --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page revoked

I have revoked the talk page access of this account to match the block settings of your main account. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Expectant of Light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23850 was submitted on Jan 28, 2019 19:00:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Expectant of Light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23862 was submitted on Jan 29, 2019 18:19:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]