User talk:Image24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 2026
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 03:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Image24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
casual user with long term sporadic history who is taking a moral stance on structural issues with an article vs some kind of moderator using intimate knowledge of the wiki beauracracy to silence me. I think the personal attacks went far, and I'm very open to being educated by someone who is not this aggressive; honestly, what's with this guy? Also, the LLM comment was an insult, but it was also proof he was wrong. I think it's easier to believe I know how to hit option shift dash than to believe an LLM responded the way I do. If I'm too aggressive (fair, open to being educated), I can't also be an LLM. Image24 (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests are expected to address your conduct, not your perception of other editors. Belief that you have a morally superior position is not an excuse to denigrate other editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- "taking a moral stance on structural issues with an article" You mean WP:RGW? Andre🚐 03:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Image24: Generally, you should never discuss a user's past blocks or bans on content disputes that do not necessarily involve the behavior in question. Also, language such as is completely unacceptable in a collaborative encyclopedia. Next time, you should look for more peaceful ways to resolve content issues. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- It did involve the behaviour in question. It was borderline that this person was breaching a topic ban. The inclusion was relevant. I'll take the ban for the language, but I think someone who understands Wikipedia policy better than I do needs to look into the logs of this dispute to see that Andre is toeing the line harassment-wise, and that this is made possible by a fluency with Wikipedia's rules and policies that far outmatches mine.
- Lesson learned. I will take this week off to learn all of the policies so that the next time someone like this confronts me, I will be prepared. Image24 (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for choosing to understand and listen. Of course, a good way to prevent yourself from getting into this situation again would be to think twice, hell, maybe three times before replying to someone, and ensuring you're engaging with the argument in question instead of attacking your opponents or policymakers. If you think someone violated a topic ban or is trying to skirt around one, you should present your evidence at WP:AE or WP:ANI instead of attacking the person directly. Also, if you need any help with editing after you get unblocked, feel free to ask at the Teahouse. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't do well with bullies, and I genuinely believe this person has a hidden agenda of harassment underlying the bureaucratic facade. That said, that's my problem, not Wikipedia's. I'll stop by when the ban is done if I remember. Hope to see you there. Image24 (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I genuinely believe this person has a hidden agenda of harassment underlying the bureaucratic facade
: Again, these are the kind of things you should not be saying out loud. It might be true, it might not, doesn't really matter, it's still considered an aspersion. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)- Well I'm not going to retract what I said while I'm trying to explain while I said it, right? Especially when I already took a ban for it. Or is that incorrect? Image24 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's probably incorrect. Thanks for the time you took already, I won't waste more of it. I'll go read up on aspersions. Image24 (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Well I'm not going to retract what I said while I'm trying to explain while I said it, right? Especially when I already took a ban for it. Or is that incorrect? Image24 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't do well with bullies, and I genuinely believe this person has a hidden agenda of harassment underlying the bureaucratic facade. That said, that's my problem, not Wikipedia's. I'll stop by when the ban is done if I remember. Hope to see you there. Image24 (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for choosing to understand and listen. Of course, a good way to prevent yourself from getting into this situation again would be to think twice, hell, maybe three times before replying to someone, and ensuring you're engaging with the argument in question instead of attacking your opponents or policymakers. If you think someone violated a topic ban or is trying to skirt around one, you should present your evidence at WP:AE or WP:ANI instead of attacking the person directly. Also, if you need any help with editing after you get unblocked, feel free to ask at the Teahouse. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Please don't post sarcastic links to policy pages you probably had a hand in editing. the moral stance was not the decision to edit an article, the moral stance was standing up to an entrenched bully. I'm not looking up policy anymore, and I'm not typing professionally to you anymore. Wikipedia is not real life, and you are risking an account you clearly identify with to harass me right now. I'll keep this up for as long as I need to, and if the moderators of this website would prefer to ban me permanently over good faith rehabilitation efforts then I will gladly go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Image24 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- And with this comment, I've upped the block to an indefinite. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- oh noooooo Image24 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- what will I do without the ability to edit wikipedia? please reconsider I'm begging you please. I don't have anything else. Image24 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- This being text, I'm unable to discern if the above is sarcasm or sincere. If it's sincere, WP:GAB has good advice on how to appeal a block. Remember that WP:Indefinite is not infinite; you can be unblocked as soon as you convince an administrator that you:
- Understand which actions of yours led to the block;
- Have a plan to avoid repeating those actions, and thus
- Are unlikely to disrupt Wikipedia in the future.
- Others' actions are only relevant insofar as you can describe a plan to respond differently if confronted with the same behavior. Nothing in the above is about justice or personal preference, merely what will as a practical matter prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I got emotional. Thank you for the resource. Image24 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- This being text, I'm unable to discern if the above is sarcasm or sincere. If it's sincere, WP:GAB has good advice on how to appeal a block. Remember that WP:Indefinite is not infinite; you can be unblocked as soon as you convince an administrator that you:
- what will I do without the ability to edit wikipedia? please reconsider I'm begging you please. I don't have anything else. Image24 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- oh noooooo Image24 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Calling me an entrenched bully for giving you standard warnings and standard policy links is another personal attack that shows you should not and will not be unblocked, and perhaps the block should indeed be upgraded to an indef. If you can learn how to communicate without casting aspersions and making personal attacks maybe you can be unblocked. This will be my last message to you. Good bye. Andre🚐 03:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Andre,
- It is clear that the only reason you have not modified the structure of the disputed article even more than you already have is because distorting it even more would bring it under your topic ban. Good luck with your mission.
- – Image24 Image24 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any 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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- If the article is in fact related to that conflict, then the topic ban was breached. Not to defend the guy, but you're condemning him while educating me. Image24 (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I was not implying or condemning anything, see below. You may, however, be interested in Iskandar's case, who was initially banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict but was later site-banned after the arbs decided they're POV-pushing in adjacent areas (such as Judaism and Islam). Again, if you believe this is the case here, you have to use the conduct forums I've mentioned above instead of making vague aspersions with no evidence. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'll be honest, I'm going to read this through to honour the time you took to share it, but I'm not an ethnic-conflict warrior and I don't care to keep commenting on articles that touch this topic if it's going to cause problems. I am a humanist and a universalist and I thought this article was discriminatory because of its structure. Image24 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I was not implying or condemning anything, see below. You may, however, be interested in Iskandar's case, who was initially banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict but was later site-banned after the arbs decided they're POV-pushing in adjacent areas (such as Judaism and Islam). Again, if you believe this is the case here, you have to use the conduct forums I've mentioned above instead of making vague aspersions with no evidence. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Image24: I know you have not interacted with this topic area, but this is something you should be aware of, considering the aspersions. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. Image24 (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)