Reto-schmid-ch

Your recent editing history at Swiss immigration referendum, February 2014 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please check out the following argumentation: About a deletion of a useless reference

Nomination of Humans of Switzerland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Humans of Switzerland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humans of Switzerland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CheeseCrisps (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that as part of the above sanctions you may not edit any content or article related to the A-I conflict until you have 500 edits

That includes the material you added to Laura Loomer. You didn't know about these restrictions so no action will be taken against you this time. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Weller,

Exactly why have you sanctioned and blocked me from editing any content or article related to the Arab-Israel conflict until I have 500 edits?

I merely came to your personal attention, because of an edit to the Laura Loomer page, which is not at all part of the I-A conflict topic area. The Laura Loomer page does not even mention the Arab-Israel conflict as part of the "Categories" section listed on the Laura Loomer Wikipedia page.

You have created a false and completely arbitrary connection between my edit on the Laura Loomer Wikipedia page and the Arab-Israel conflict, in order to suit your own personal political agenda.

Evidently you are restricting, censoring, and banning me, because of your own personal political views, despite the fact my edit to the Laura Loomer page had nothing at all to do with the Arab-Israel conflict.

Unless you are a raving anti-Semite, you will immediately reverse your discretionary action and restore my editing privileges.

Failure to do so will result in personal legal action against you for violating my 1st Amendment rights.

Sincerely yours, Reto Schmid

Please read the alert notice I gave you more carefully. You are not sanctioned, you are alerted to the existence of sanctions. I carefully wrote that "as part of the above sanctions". No one using an IP address and no account with less than 500 edits and 30 days can edit within the area of the sanctions. These are sanctions set by the WP:Arbitration Committee (which I was on for four years) to stop editwarring in the area. They aren't aimed specifically at you. As for categories, we don't have one for the conflict but it seems pretty obvious that a Jewish anti-Muslim activist, or a Muslim anti-Jewish activist, is covered by the conflict. I'm guessing that you didn't click on the "here" in the alert which takes you to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which uses the phrase "broadly interpreted".

Sadly though you have threatened legal action and according to WP:NLT you should be blocked immediately until the legal action is resolved or you agree that you have no intentions of taking legal action. I'll wait to see if you withdraw the threat however as you are new and it would be grossly unfair to block you without giving you a chance to read our policy and reconsider. You also need to read assume good faith. I'm not any kind of anti-Semite nor can I give you an exemption and allow you to edit in the area. You need to study the Constitution by the way, the First Amendment restricts the government, not private organisations. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Weller,

Thank you for your patronising and fallacious reply. Let me explain why your reasoning will be of great interest to the delightfully unforgiving online court of public opinion...

For a start the First Amendment protects speech not monopolies. To deny Wikipedia does not hold the global monopoly as the world's leading encyclopaedic information and reference internet resource would be ludicrous and fly in the face of Wikipedia's own claims.

Furthermore, as already correctly stated and confirmed by your good self, the Laura Loomer Wikipedia page does not mention or reference the Arab-Israeli conflict with a single word. The only person who has drawn a direct connection between the Laura Loomer Wikipedia page and the Arab-Israeli conflict are you Mr. Weller.

Indeed, as part of your latest attempt at reasoning, you clearly create a dangerously false and highly racist connection.

According to your faulty logic, all Jewish anti-Muslim activists or Muslim anti-Jewish activists must, due to their race and / or religious affiliation, be connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

You are arguing the formal fallacy that P implies Q, Mr. Weller.

Just because a person is a flight instructor, they do not automatically have a job.

Just because a person is a Jewish anti-Muslim activist or Muslim anti-Jewish activist, they are not automatically connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

That's basic logic 101, Mr. Weller.

Are you equally as keen as mustard to seriously claim all people of Chinese origin are connected to the Tibetan sovereignty debate or that all species of bears are connected to the North Pole, Mr. Weller? Of course you’re not at all keen to claim any of that, because that would be both extremely racist and exceedingly stupid of you, would it not, Mr. Weller. However, you are clearly perfectly happy to make an exception and single out for special treatment an alleged Jewish anti-Muslim activist, Mr. Weller. I’m certain the irony has not escaped you either?

May I presume your fallacious reasoning to have been perhaps unintentionally bad and influenced by your personal bias and political agenda Mr. Weller? After all, at first glance, your argument might indeed seem superficially convincing to the truly witless.

Clearly you need to study Wikipedia more closely Mr. Weller, because evidently you can't recognise a simple fallacy of the inverse (denying the antecedent) when it bites you on your nose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Last but not least, please don't disseminate falsehood Mr. Weller. You erroneously claim Wikipedia does not have a category entitled Arab-Israeli conflict, yet a quick search of Wikipedia clearly reveals you indeed do have a category entitled Arab-Israeli conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict

Since I've just publicly proven your reasoning and thinking are well and truly fallacious and highly racist and anti-Semitic, I shall abstain from taking legal action against you.

However, given the fact you have shown yourself to be misguided by your own fallacious logic, you would do well to reinstate my former editing privileges with immediate effect. In that case I will be perfectly happy to delete this entire correspondence and let you save your face and reputation. I need hardly tell you how sensitive private organisations have become in recent years with regards to the exposure of racism and anti-Semitism within the court of public opinion, Mr. Weller. You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I Feel Lucky?' Well, Do Ya, Mr. Weller?

Sincerely yours, Reto Schmid

PS: I’ve obviously saved screen captures of this correspondence should either you or your colleagues decide to delete anything.

You know, while walking my dog I decided I was wrong about Laura Loomer, but that doesn't make me "highly racist and anti-Semitic"

She's just an ordinary bigot. Fortunately the Jews who hate Muslims and the Muslims who hate Jews are in a minority worldwide. So yes, that page is not covered by the sanctions and I should have realised that there was a category, although there are articles not in that category that should be and many more where there is content covered by the sanctions regime but not in the category.

I never removed any editing privileges from you, I have no idea why you keep saying that when I made it clear they weren't aimed at you. No one with less than 500 edits and 30 days can edit material related to the conflict, although they can use talk pages. As for your claims about the First Amendment, you need to read WP:Free speech.

If you read my WP:Edit summary you'll see I didn't revert you because of the conflict issue but because it was simply a bad edit. New editors often make edits that are against policy and guidelines, I certainly did. I pointed out that we never, or at least should never, tell readers what they should note, and that your edit didn't include the full context (thus violating WP:NPOV. But the major reason is that it is what we call "original research", see WP:NOR. Your edit, suitably modified, might belong in other articles, but not in her article, unless your sources actually mention her. Otherwise you are trying to use your sources to build an argument that the sources don't directly support, and we don't allow that. If I hadn't reverted you someone else probably would have.

Most of your edits haven't been within the conflict area, but your March edits were. Just avoid that sort of thing and you should be ok, although to be brutally frank I think you need to understand that your tone won't get you far here. You lack experience with with other editors and may be used to forums where that's ok, so no harm done if you start following our guidelines. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF just ask people to treat others as they'd like to be treated, it shouldn't be hard to follow. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And you might benefit from seeing my comments and edit summary here concerning an IP threatening Jews with genocide. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)