User talk:Maxbeirut

This is me.

Maxbeirut is currently experiencing mental health issues, which may affect their Wikipedia editing in various ways. They may have:

altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them;
reduced availability on Wikipedia during times when they experience issues;
limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page or email messages in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.

Thank you for your understanding.

~Max Beirut~

This is the one and only account I use.

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.

45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1978 Iranian politics, 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.

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.

45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Battle of Changping—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ToBeFree. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Poland that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

That other user has just gotten blocked for a week for edit-warring. I asked the user in the Talk section to provide sources for his statements but he wouldn't budge and would keep reverting. Since he's now been blocked for a week, and I assume my block is the result of some sort of misunderstanding, I'm asking most nicely of you to lift this block as there is certainty that I will not involve myself in an edit war of any sort anywhere. In advance let me apologize for any commotion that I may have influenced. And I will do my utmost to stay civil. Everything is cleared up now Maxbeirut (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's no misunderstanding; you were edit warring. This isn't about the other user. It's about you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:54, 8 April 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.

Maxbeirut (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Maxbeirut, you have been edit warring. The block is about your behavior only. You were clearly aware that edit warring is prohibited as you explained this to the other user in the edit summary of your revert. There doesn't seem to be a misunderstanding. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Well I'm aware of Wikipedia policy that any uncited statement that causes controversy may be removed at will. So I followed this policy. And that user kept reverting while being unwilling to participate in the discussion I opened in the Talk section and also unwilling to provide sources. I'm new to Wikipedia, so if you could explain to me how to proceed with such rule-breaking users in any other way, I'd be glad. I saw my reverts as execution of the WP and therefore not as edit warring, despite technically falling under 3RR. So, again, if you could please explain how to proceed... Maxbeirut (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure – there is no strict policy about how to proceed, just about how not to (edit warring). But there is a very helpful essay that may help: Responding to a failure to discuss. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

(regarding "execution of the WP", there is no such exception at WP:3RRNO. Edit warring is disruptive and prohibited even if you are right.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet, I'm a new user already thanked for my edits example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artemis_II&oldid=prev&diff=1347755100, so I most kindly request to be unblocked and be given the opportunity to correct the record, I was already blocked once for 24h (User:ToBeFree said: for behavior, specifically for the "cringe" comment) and made my promise to follow all the rules most stringently and have not broken it, and will not break it. Please, give me this benefit of the doubt, I think it's the least I deserve. Best regards, Maxbeirut (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is blatantly obvious you are the same editor as User:Bowdlerised. Beign 'thanked' for edits is completely irrelevant to anything. What is relevant is that you are evading your block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 10 April 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.

Just to note (and I'm writing this here as it's unrelated to the block appeal), I've checked the edit history of the account I'm accused of being a sockpuppet of, User:PJK 1993, and it seems like the user who started the edit war, User_talk:Polska-PL, who has gotten blocked for 1 week (edit: blocked indefinitely now), may actually be the sockpuppet of him. Sadly I can't tell User:Daniel Case about this on his Talk page as I'm, well, blocked right now, but it is worth looking into. What's certain is that I am not. I've made more edits on Romania-related articles than Poland-related articles. Maxbeirut (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Well I disagree that it's blatantly obvious. WP:DUCK states: "The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, editors must assume good faith from others." I've checked the edit history of the account I'm accused of being a sockpuppet of, User:PJK 1993, and now also of another (!) user I'm being accused of being, User:Bowdlerised, and it seems like the user who started the edit war, User_talk:Polska-PL, who has gotten blocked for 1 week (edit: blocked indefinitely now), may actually be the sockpuppet of him/them. Sadly I can't tell User:Daniel Case about this on his Talk page as I'm, well, blocked right now, but it is worth looking into. What's certain is that I am not. I've made more edits on Romania-related articles than Poland-related articles. Now, @Daniel Case was covertly pinged at User_talk:Daniel_Case#Likely_another_sock with an explicit request to ban me, all because I made the correct edit that the neighboring country of Poland is Russia and not Kaliningrad Oblast. A very obvious correction. Another "reason" given being that I used the commonly used word "cringe" to describe an edit, of the now-indefinitely blocked user, which apparently someone had already made about that edit before... (and I already got a 24h block for it, i.e. for behavior, as per ToBeFree) And so on. So I don't get (1) why this accusation (2) why this reasoning (3) why that was sufficient to make an assumption about me, to then block me indefinitely. So I see I aroused some attention from someone and made that someone apparently my "enemy" (which is sad, since I never stumbled upon that someone who requested this) but, I hope, Wikipedia is better than this. That's why I kindly request you to verify precisely the faulty reasoning which led to this hasty block. As for being thanked, it is relevant as it points to the value I've already managed to bring to Wikipedia during my short stay here. Maxbeirut (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're overestimating the potential negative impact for the encyclopedia of a block incorrectly affecting your account, and it doesn't even seem to be incorrect. Your current account has been here for 5 days before getting blocked for disruptive editing. Whatever – this is now a checkuser block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:12, 10 April 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.

User:Daniel Case's indefinite block-on-request

By the way, I noticed that @Daniel Case was covertly pinged at User_talk:Daniel_Case#Likely_another_sock with an explicit request to ban me, all because I made the correct edit that the neighboring country of Poland is Russia and not Kaliningrad Oblast. A very obvious correction. Another "reason" given being that I used the commonly used word "cringe" to describe an edit which apparently someone had already made about that edit before... And so on. So I don't get (1) why this accusation (2) why this reasoning (3) why that was sufficient to make an assumption about me, to then block me indefinitely. So I see I aroused some attention from someone and made that someone apparently my "enemy" (which is sad, since I never stumbled upon that someone who requested this) but, I hope, Wikipedia is better than this. Maxbeirut (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey @ToBeFree, since you were previously involved with me here, and there appears to now be a violation of WP:DUCK here, could you please chip in and give us your opinion? Maxbeirut (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems

Likely enough for this to become a checkuser block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

So run the checkuser and tell me what you see

Best regards Maxbeirut (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean it's simply an impossibility for me to be PJK 1993 or whoever else, someone I'm not. So it all seems quite absurd to me. It's not "likely" either I am or I'm not, and who would know that better than me. If you could tell me and help me out of this kafkaesque situation, I'd be glad Maxbeirut (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I mean it's simply an impossibility for me to be PJK 1993 or whoever else, someone I'm not. So it seems all absurd to me. It's not "likely" either I am or I'm not, and who would know that better than me--that I'm NOT. I am myself. MB. Max Beirut. If anyone could help me out of this kafkaesque situation, I'd be most glad Maxbeirut (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I mean it's simply an impossibility for me to be PJK 1993 or whoever else, someone I'm not. So it seems all absurd to me. It's not "likely" either I am or I'm not, and who would know that better than me--that I'm NOT. I am myself. MB. Max Beirut. If anyone could help me out of this kafkaesque situation, I'd be most glad [[User:Maxbeirut|Maxbeirut]] ([[User talk:Maxbeirut#top|talk]]) 09:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I mean it's simply an impossibility for me to be PJK 1993 or whoever else, someone I'm not. So it seems all absurd to me. It's not "likely" either I am or I'm not, and who would know that better than me--that I'm NOT. I am myself. MB. Max Beirut. If anyone could help me out of this kafkaesque situation, I'd be most glad [[User:Maxbeirut|Maxbeirut]] ([[User talk:Maxbeirut#top|talk]]) 09:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I mean it's simply an impossibility for me to be PJK 1993 or whoever else, someone I'm not. So it seems all absurd to me. It's not "likely" either I am or I'm not, and who would know that better than me--that I'm NOT. I am myself. MB. Max Beirut. If anyone could help me out of this kafkaesque situation, I'd be most glad [[User:Maxbeirut|Maxbeirut]] ([[User talk:Maxbeirut#top|talk]]) 09:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Maxbeirut (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles