User talk:Dgoldman0

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct to say that I am involved in an edit war, but not "engaging in" one. The reality is that I have been trying to ensure that only that which can be agreed upon more generally is included in the article. You can also see from the talk page that I contributed significantly there. We must avoid language which can lead to significant contestation based on vague language. I did also request page protection, though not sure if I did it correctly. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it to the last consensus point. To revert to a version prior to that would mean reintroducing a clear contradiction between the first and second paragraphs which should be deemed unacceptable. Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already been warned about this, for this very article, so I won't add another 3RR tag. I'll give you some time to revert yourself. If you don't, I'll request to have you blocked from editing Wikipedia. — kwami (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting to reach consensus this entire time. As stated in my most recently reply, I have added even more to justify the current edits, or we can move back to the most recent consensus point which is with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Israel&oldid=1216523018

It is improper to return to a previous consensus point. You are violating consensus by doing so. Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reach consensus first. Then you make the edit. You don't fight over them, insisting that you're right and others are wrong, while 'trying' to reach consensus.

I reverted to the stable version of the article before you started your war. That's entirely proper. If there's a later consensus, ask one of the others involved and they can restore it to that point. I'm not going to trust your judgement on that: Accusing others of your behaviour, as you do repeatedly, is characteristic of acting in bad faith.

Anyway, I'm going to sleep. I hope I find the article in better shape tomorrow, with the 'dispute' tag removed because you've realized that you need to share the sandbox. — kwami (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reach consensus first. Then you make the edit. You don't fight over them, insisting that you're right and others are wrong, while 'trying' to reach consensus.

Very good. Let's return to the consensus reached here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Israel&oldid=1216523018 Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what the others (one of whom requested help in dealing with you) will accept, then yes, that's fine. — kwami (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope so, because I have bent over backwards trying to reach a compromise where differences in interpretation are avoided. And that is clear from the talk page. I have suggested leaving it as "complex" because it is. I have suggested focusing on recognition over legality because that is the point of the very article. I have suggested the inclusion of the term "valid" as that is literally what source #1 says. I have made it clear that there is absolutely a question of whether teleservice officiation is performed "in" Israel. I have pointed out numerous ways in which the article contradicts itself by leaving "not legal" or "not recognized" stand.

"Same-sex marriage is not legal in Israel... In July 2022, the Central District Court ruled that marriages performed in Israel under an online civil marriage service established by the U.S. state of Utah, including same-sex marriages, are legal in Israel."

Do you not see that paragraph one and paragraph two, in the original version, stand in direct contradiction of each other? Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dgoldman0! 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! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have 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 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder, please confine your editing in the topic area, per WP:ARBECR, to edit requests only. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Isn't "talk" exactly where non-edits go while we discuss edits? Dgoldman0 (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make edit requests. That is all you can do in the PIA topic area until you are extended confirmed. See WP:EDITXY for guidelines. Do you understand this rule, and will you comply with it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making edit requests does not include calling people nazis. I assumed this would be self-evident, but apparently not. Again, read WP:EDITXY. Follow the simple rules. If you can't, you should not be editing Wikipedia. It's just an encyclopedia with policies and guidelines. It is not a battleground where people can come to make Israel supporters look bad. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you should not be editing Wikipedia pages if you're not willing to take into account clear evidence that the language used is not only controversial but biased in a way which paints a certain party in a negative light. Stop acting like Nazis if you don't want to be called Nazis. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero interest what the article says or how it makes anyone feel. Once again, read WP:EDITXY. If you want to present "clear evidence" that the language used is "not only controversial but biased" you will need present actual evidence. Statements of personal opinion are not evidence. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is constructed from summarized parts of sources that qualify as reliable. We are not reliable sources. You will achieve nothing unless you follow the rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of how it makes one feel. The language is wrong, for the reasons mentioned. It is clear that this issue is NOT settled because there is user after user bringing up the same point, adding new insight each time.

It makes no sense, unless you are absolutely interested in making a political statement, to leave such contested language when there is no need. And I provided sources. The same sources that are used for the other entries mentioned. Others have as well. There is clear indication that the current wording is not reasonable. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the rules is the solution and the only option. You can assume everything you believe to be the case is not the case, then you can start editing with a clean mind. Think about the inconsistency between statements like "The language is wrong", "It makes no sense", "not reasonable" and "Wikipedia is...constructed from summarized parts of sources that qualify as reliable." We don't get to decide what is wrong or makes sense or is unreasonable, we just follow the sources according to policy and guidelines. It's something anyone is capable of doing if they will just follow the rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a bunch of sources which provide contradicting information. There comes a point where you have to consider definitions rather than just what one source says. And those definitions are presented in others sources.

When you have enough sources which bring into question the wording of one source, it is time to throw that source out or just change the wording.

For instance:

de Lima, Alan Freire. "Jewish anthropology: the jewish people as an ancestral and native people of the Land of Israel, the jewish people as an indigenous people." Cuadernos de Educación y Desarrollo 16.3 (2024): e3518-e3518.

This paper clearly indicates that Jews are indigenous to the land.

Would you accept a Wikipedia entry that says the Earth was created in 7 days, source Bible? No. Because it contradicts with other sources. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRUTH. You have, or you are employing, a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. This is one of the reasons we have the WP:ECR rule and limit new users in contentious topic areas to straightforward XY edit requests. If you want to throw stuff out, throw out everything you believe to be the case and start again from the sources. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS AN ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY on the controversial nature of calling Zionism a colonial project/movement. And that entry has plenty of citations. And if Wikipedia is so rigorous, then how can you not at least consider that entry when looking at the wording of THIS entry?!

All you are doing is making it so difficult to have a reasonable conversation about MINOR changes.

Also it seems that when there is disagreement, it works in favor of Palestine and against Israel/the Jews. For instance, it's well known that many reject, and many scholars reject, the status of Palestine as a state. But the Palestine entry just starts right up with calling it a state.

Meanwhile, even though there is no criminal punishment, no fine, AND recognition for same sex MARRIAGES registered abroad, the entry on same sex marriage in Israel still lists it as illegal.

There is clear antisemitic bias. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an internally consistent system. Yes, there is a lot of bias all over Wikipedia, but you can't be here to support Israel/the Jews or fight what looks like antisemitism to you. You can be here to help build an encyclopedia by following the rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And leaving clearly contested language which is contradicted by multiple parties, and for which there is an entire Wikipedia entry dedicated to the fact that it is contested, does not help build an encyclopedia. At this point, I, and others, have given more than enough evidence that the language used is simply not appropriate and it is unnecessary.

How about this as an edit option.

"...late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Levant."

This edit neither speaks on the indigenous status of the Jewish people or mentions colonization. The inclusion of the contested language is not necessary nor does it provide value. This shorter piece provides MORE information by saying WHERE it is and is just as well, if not better justified by the source material.

A refusal to allow such a edit would just prove your bias, because it follows all the rules and improves the quality of the encyclopedia by avoiding contested information. Dgoldman0 (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITXY requires straightforward edit requests that are not controversial, repeated requests for a controversial edit are not helpful. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is straightforward, and the requested edit makes the final version uncontroversial.

"...late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Levant."

WHAT IS CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THAT STATEMENT?! Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for Personal attacks, ECR violations, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I don't handle unblock requests or content discussions via email. Please remember that WP:ECR applies on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to violate ECR I will remove your talk page access. Your talk page access is for addressing your block, not addressing content that you are not allowed to discuss on-wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I appeal without discussing the topic when it relates directly to the cause of the ban?! If the editors are being unreasonable then ultimately they are at fault because my bad behavior, which I admit was bad, would never have happened because it was a reaction to far worse behavior. Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the issue (aside from calling editors Nazis), you're not allowed to discuss the topic until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I submitted the request properly this time. Regarding the inability to discuss the topic, that is true, with the exception of reasonable edit requests. I admit that I am not as familiar with the process, so it did take me a try or two, but you cannot deny that I was (1) working on ensuring that the request aligned with the rules and (2) that the edit request was reasonable by the end.

So now I am saying that the reason for the rejection is because of antisemitic bias. This situation is not a one off. It's a pattern. There is clear antisemitic bias allowing highly controversial language when it favors anti-Zionism. And I will not stand down. Block me from any comments at all, even on my own talk page, if you must. Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior of editors like you lot are common enough that it is published in peer reviewed research. I would have seriously had some doubt and questioned myself if not for research like this. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 Dgoldman0 (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know all about that. Did you miss the Pubpeer responses?[1] Doug Weller talk 10:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you know all about it, why haven't you changed your behavior? Why are you still promoting antisemitic ideology under the guise of editorial rigor? If you are unwilling to even moderately change language that has been proven to cause controversy then you are at best trolls who support such reactions. But you're Nazi supporters really. You support antisemitism. It's people like you that are the reason why antisemitic violence is so much of a problem. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dgoldman0, if you haven't already done so, please consider watching Lanzmann's documentary, all 9+ hours, preferably in one sitting (as I did at a cinema when you could still smoke while watching films), before you call Wikipedia editors nazis or complain about antisemitic bias. These things shouldn't be thrown around like candy. It devalues language and it's just rude. There are nazis and antisemites here for sure, but they do not flourish. If you want to observe them in their natural habitat, the Eustace Mullins article is one of their watering holes where you might get the occasional glimpse. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> These things shouldn't be thrown around like candy...

Entire peer reviewed paper showing clear antisemitic bias and use of editorial authority. Stop acting like Nazis if you don't want to be labeled "Nazis."

Antisemitism flourishes on this platform. - A Jew and formally trained anthropologist who is not going to be gaslit by people like you.

I almost was. You almost had me gaslit into believing that I was in the wrong, until I read a full scholarly paper showcasing the very behavior that I saw. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Jewish, or formally trained in Holocaust history, by the way, or are you a White man telling a formally trained anthropologist and member of the Jewish nation to watch a documentary on the topic? Because if it's the latter, it's like a WT telling a Black person to go watch a documentary on slavery.

Really. It's important to know. Because uneducated White people talking over Jews and our concerns about antisemitism is itself an example of antisemitism. Though maybe you're an expert and a Jew, or at least one. My guess though is neither. Am I correct? Dgoldman0 (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dgoldman0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. While I admit bad behavior on my part, this bad behavior was a direct response to unacceptable behavior by editors. I argue that editors are abusing their authority and status by refusing reasonable edits that would resolve concerns of Jewish members regarding possibly antisemitic tone, w.r.t. articles involving Israel and Zionism. Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request has zero chance of being accepted, so I decline to transfer it to a noticeboard for discussion. See WP:NOTTHEM. You should only be discussing your actions and how they led to your sanction. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.