User talk:Refael Ackermann

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.

M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and although I'm already aware of these guideline, I appreciate the care and attention given to this topic. Especially considering the huge disproportions between the number of actual stakeholders, versus opinionated bystanders.

To whom or where do I raise the issue of anti-Israeli bias in many many articles pertaining to the conflict? Refael Ackermann (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shakshouka. 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. Skitash (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shakshouka, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Shakshouka. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You have deliberately violated the ARBECR on more than one occasion and are now being extremely disruptive (see diff, diff and diff), I will ping ToBeFree and see what they have to say. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

If encouraging users to follow the rules, and peruse the truth, I'm guilty as charged.

FYI dear Admin see summary of latest attack on me in this talk page I apologize for using an archive site, but I do not know anything about my objectors and if they have permissions to WP:REVDEL.

My references WP:CIVIL WP:NPOV WP:COC Refael Ackermann (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I [327 edits in 20 years] am not as experienced as my accuser [58,307 edits in 10 years] of Wikipedia rules and procedures. I so request unbiased discussion according WRT the Arbitration​Committee's decision on the Arab–Israeli conflict Refael Ackermann (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

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) 22:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree

you have applied the most severe of action (indefinite blocking). Please provide the reasoning behind your decision to use the "indefinite block" and specify the exact offenses that you believe warrant such an extreme action? Refael Ackermann (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Refael Ackermann, I think I had done so to stop you from running around like a bull in a china shop. As the disruption was not limited to one page, the block is not limited to one page; as the disruption had no expectable end and an unblock request seemed to be something to reasonably require, the block has no automatic expiry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Please list pages and the extant of the "bull run" in your words.

Again, you took the most extreme of action, so I'm sure you did your due diligence, and had no expose Wikimedia to undue liability. Refael Ackermann (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. in the above I'm querying about your accusation of "disrupting". I almost forgot the ask you to make explicit the "point" in your accusation of "to making a point". Refael Ackermann (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Refael Ackermann, I won't write the unblock request for you. Your list of contributions is public. Further advice can be found at WP:GAB. The content of this page here already contains enough explanations to fulfill my accountability requirements unless an unblock request is made and the reviewing administrator(s) has questions. I won't answer further questions from you for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree nope.

the onus is on you, the judge, jury, and Executioner to be verbose and explicit in their verdict.

i.e. you MUST be clear and true in YOUR explanation of the way you applied your privilege.

I write this because I have no idea what was your reasoning is in applying the most severe of Wikipedia punishments. And since I am the object of your vehamance, you are accountable at the very least to me.

(undue liability means - your actions might cost the people you privileged you will power much money) Refael Ackermann (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree for example: did YOU ask me to do things differently?

did YOU warn me that doing so and so will result in such and such?

Did you ever read the dialogue between myself and the accusing editors?

IMHO you surely did, otherwise your actions would have been brutal, arbitrary and inexcusable, which verily could not be the case for an arbitrator in the Israel-Palestine Wikipedia dispute Refael Ackermann (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

(And I have no idea what "expose Wikimedia to undue liability" is supposed to mean in context of your block.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Since you are not able to duly justify your most harsh sanction, I would ask you to revert it, and yield to a higher more thorough arbitrator.

I just found out you seem to be a member of WP:AC. I'm not sure how does that.... Refael Ackermann (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree P.P.S. see this very short list of brave judges:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_business_fraud_lawsuit_against_the_Trump_Organization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_business_fraud_lawsuit_against_the_Trump_Organization

i.e. if you can't justify your ruling, roll it back and yield to a higher court, and save face. Maybe even be considered a vanguard Refael Ackermann (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)