User talk:Kleinerziegler

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the 30 days/500 edits restriction applies to community processes on talk pages -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't think that this was a very fair way to respond to my complaint. If you guys don't agree with my view, that is fine, I accept that. I am a new editor to Wikipedia and a lot of the policies bought up in the discussion are new to me. I genuinely thought that there has been wrongdoing by the other user (not in the legal sense, in the moral sense) and that this would be the appropriate place/way to complain, not get a block against myself.

Going straight to a perma ban is quite extreme and really does not help the Wikipedia cause when you turn away people who are just trying to take part in the Wikipedia process. I put a lot of time into keeping that article up to date of all candidates (and the edit history would show that I did not put any particular attention to any one candidate), so it seems quite unappreciative for someone to undo my work in the last minute, and then when I complain about it, I get banned without an opportunity to respond to the accusations which led to the ban.

"Electoral fraud" was in reference to the practice of it, not the crime ("the term is sometimes used to describe acts which are legal, but considered morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of an election or in violation of the principles of democracy."). I do admit that I did assume bad faith against the AGF Policy which I was unaware of and still found it hard to naturally assume good faith due to the timing issue. It goes without saying that I accept the findings and would not repeat the same mistake again- I will assume good faith at all times if there is a next time.

I would also like to set the record straight that it was alleged that there was only 380 pageviews on that article that day. In fact there were 2746 views. This is 7.46% of the vote and in a preferential voting system, this is a huge amount which mathematically (but unlikely in this case) could have altered the outcome of the vote. The point being, even if it is unlikely this time, the user I was complaining about didn't know this at the time what the vote would look like. But this is only a side topic - I still accept the findings that I acting inappropriately regardless of the technical details of the issue itself. Kleinerziegler (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not a "permaban", but a block without an end date, which means it will be removed when you convince an administrator to remove it. A ban is something entirely different. It may be true that "electoral fraud" is a broad term, but the average person will interpret that as an accusation of a crime, especially in the context that you were using it. In looking at your edit history, you have edited in two topic areas-politics and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- that are highly contentious(with the latter formally designated a contentious topic). You might find it easier to assume good faith if you edited in less contentious topic areas at least for now. If that's okay with you, please make a new request where you tell us what edits you wish to make. You may also make a new request in which you attempt to convince another administrator to remove the block without any formal or informal restrictions. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2023 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

a permaban on editing then? I think that we are just arguing semantics. I used the term 'electoral fraud' entirely within the definition as presented on Wikipedia itself, including quote, and I make it unequivically clear that it is not a legal threat, should not be taken as one, and was never intended to be one. If it were, I would have said so. I have not, because it isn't one. I have not contacted the election authorities in this matter, the police, or lawyers, or anything of the sort, or was ever planning to. I also disagree with your assessment that I am only editing contentious topics. I did not make any edits to Israel-Palestine conflict, I merely made a suggestion in the Talk page that noncombatant civilians should be treated as their own 'side' in the war infobox. I think that it should hardly be a contentious opinion to support innocent noncombatant civilians of both sides. Politics more generally - only to assist in local elections in Australia to get accurate information for all sides. As I said, I added data for a variety of candidates, even ones I personally don't agree with, to give them all a fair chance because I care more about democracy itself than any partisanship. To be honest, I understand if a period of editing ban is appropriate to hammer in some kind of lesson even though I already get what I did wrong and won't do it again, but to make me make a request every time I want to suggest an edit seems quite impractical and will become annoying to all involved very fast. How would I even do so? Request an unban every time I want to make an edit or submit a support ticket? It seems like these are the only function available to me. So to be honest, no, it is not really OK with me, and now it is you guys who are assuming bad faith of me. Any future activities would no doubt be linked back to this anyway, there would be no way to hide it. I am just trying to make a good faith effort to work within Wikipedia's framework, even though it would be trivial to bypass the block in reality. At least this way you have full visibility of my history. Is this really how Wikipedia handles unban requests... Just some random other administrator sees it? No tribunal or formal process? I guess not, since I got banned on a whim of an Administrator in the first place. Anyway I am not going to assume bad faith again or be so quick to take things to the Administrators for intervention, will not do anything related to taking legal actions against other users/Wikipedia, and will work cooperatively with other users Kleinerziegler (talk) 10:49 am, 20 November 2023, Monday (1 month, 19 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

This not an unblock request. It is some sort of screed. Please concisely and clearly describe what you did to get blocked, what you will do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2024 (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.

If I could offer a comment here, I'd have to suggest that regardless of what definition one applied, describing a candidate as 'a student' rather than 'a graduate student' does not even remotely constitute electoral fraud. If it did, any negative comment made anywhere about any candidate would likewise constitute 'fraud', which would be utterly absurd, and contrary to democratic process, which quite properly involves robust scrutiny of the merits of candidates. Wikipedia strives to be neutral (per the policy laid out in WP:NPOV rather than according to some imaginary abstract absolute neutrality), but intentional deviations from that (if they actually had taken place, which seems questionable) are matters for internal discussion, and should not be presented as some sort of attack on democracy itself. That is nonsensical hyperbole, and has no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As I already said, I will not assume bad faith again. To be clear: I am sorry, and will try to not be hyperbolic.

My concern originated from that I had put effort into giving each candidate a fair background summary of a similar standard to each other, and erasing qualifications for some candidates but not others did not seem right:

The Sustainable candidate had the following information erased:

• Her Indigenous ancestry (which is part of her platform)
• Her experience in Environmental studies
• Her level of education, being a grad student

The Independent Ian Cook candidate had the following information erased:

• That he is a small business owner (replaced with 'Former businessman'). How insulting when his business is still trading in QLD, and "Small business" carries a certain amount of pride.

The Liberal candidate:

• His experience in a working on public policy directly for the Leader of the Opposition, which is a very prestigious role.

The Socialist candidate:

• Previous experience from running as a candidate in Thomastown

The Green candidate:

• Her experience as a Health professional

The Labor candidate:

• Her experience as a Clinical psychologist

Independent Tina Theodossopoulou:

• A little bit of information about her how to vote card as finding background information about her online was so difficult to find

Animal Justice candidate:

• Her experience in holding high positions within the Animal Justice party
• Her experience in grassroots community activism in the neighbouring city
• Her experience being in the public sector

I just think that Sustainable was the most egregious because the only word left was "student" with nothing else to meaningfully fill their background info, not to mention that her experience as an Indigenous person who is spiritually and physically connected to the natural environment was core to her platform.

--Kleinerziegler (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

To add. I don't think that this block serves any purpose as set by the criteria in the Wikipedia:Blocking_policy. There is no immediate threat to any disruptive editing or behaviour against other users. There were no legal threats to begin with (and therefore are not outstanding). Blocking is not meant to be punative. If you have doubts about my sincerity, well that would be very disappoiting and you should assume good faith unless there is anything to suggest otherwise (as you have told me to do), but even still I should still be eligible for a 2nd chance.

Sorry if I come across the wrong way, I am very autistic. --Kleinerziegler (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• It isn't semantics, bans and blocks are entirely different. You are not banned, and it is not "permanent" which suggests it can never be removed. You don't have to edit an article on a designated contentious topic to contribute about it- editing talk pages counts. There is no "tribunal" in matters like this; the Arbitration Committee only hears the most serious issues. As you have already done, you have made a new request for someone else to review, which is what is supposed to happen. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  My contributions to the Talk page were started before the page was even officially designated as contentious, my contributions were not contentious, and even though it is indeed a contentious topic, that should not confer a negative judgement about me just for participating unless there was something defective about those contributions.

  I was entitled to participate at the time that I started making those contributions, and then the rules changed mid-way, and so I stopped. That is not fair to judge me on this.

  Why does it even make a difference if I edit what you deem are "contentious topic areas". I know what assuming good faith means. I am just going to assume good faith from now on - even if I really think it is bad faith, I will just treat it as if it were good faith anyways. Pretty easy.

  A bit of unsolicited feedback - I am disappointed that you didn't even ask questions or give me a chance to reply before you made your decision. and that is why I am surprised by the lack of process in sorting out these "indefinite unblock requests" (or whatever you want to call them) given that Wikipedia already has so many policies and procedures. For any typical user, this is far too much effort, and really leaves a bad taste in my mouth about how Wikipedia treats new users who want to make a positive contribution to the site. Kleinerziegler (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

Looks like WP:TOPICBANs for Arab–Israeli conflict and Australian politics are in order? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand, I didn't even make any contributions towards any Arab Israeli content or for any 'side'. I only made a suggestion for any info box in a talk page.

As far as Australian Politics goes, yes, I have made contributions, and I had made the mistake of assuming bad faith about another editor when they overwrote much of my content at the 11th hour and I put in a complaint, which was then turned against me. I have apologised and promised not to do anything like that again. Kleinerziegler (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)