BeyondTheGreenLine
Welcome! edit
Hi BeyondTheGreenLine! I noticed your contributions to Arutz Sheva and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks for the information and warm welcome. I will look into the resources. Nice replacement link for your "talk page".
BeyondTheGreenLine 03:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
ARBPIA alert edit
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.
January 2021 edit
Please do not attack other editors. 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I said stop harassing me please. BeyondTheGreenLine 15:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I attacked no one. I stood up for myself and requested to not be harassed. Your cooperation with the harassing person has made you a facilitator of harassment. I will not be subjected to this and remain silent. Please stop. BeyondTheGreenLine 15:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe too much in deletion so I left everything I wrote prior. I'm not sure exactly your role in this situation yet or your position on Wikipedia but have left you a message on your page- somewhat intended for the other user genoV84 but also for you. I'm intending all this chaos over the Noahidism page to end and for Wikipedia to simply be an objective encyclopedia funded by public dollar donations and developed by volunteer collaboration. The reason I wish this is that it is what 1. will make Wikipedia better in the future and 2. more importantly, what I thought the mission of and purpose of Wikipedia was. I hope this message finds you well. Peace.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 17:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021 edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Noahidism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Noahidism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your intentional, deliberate, and persistent removal of informations and sourced content from reliable sources qualifies as disruptive editing and vandalism on Wikipedia.--GenoV84 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- GenoV84: This is not "vandalism"; please stop using the term when referring to good-faith editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: Are you sure? Take a look at this.--GenoV84 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure. No matter how disruptive this is, it is not done with the intent to damage the encyclopedia. Please remember to assume good faith. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: Are you sure? Take a look at this.--GenoV84 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Noahidism#Ism?. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This is blatant politically motivated harassment and will be seen as such in the arbitration that will result of you do not bow to an agreement, admitting that you are attempting to bully a Jewish opinion out of Wikipedia for anti Semitic purpose. I’ll let you guess which 9 letters are after my name and figure out how you want to move forward. This isn’t going away for you. Utilization of policies as a sword rather than a shield won’t work. BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 03:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I said leave me alone...I meant it! BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 03:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I will say this one more time, leave me alone or I will go speak with US attorneys about this. The aggressive attempts at a FIRST instance of someone who has been a Wikipedia editor for far less than a year to shut down based on Jewish opinions is incredulously obvious. I will defend myself inside and outside of Wikipedia. This is not a negotiation. This is a statement of what is to come. You do not get to ride off tax free dollars to subversively spread hate. Like I said, all you have to do is cease harassing me but now I'm adding reversion of anti-semitic statements to the list. You know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose. Mazel Tov. Bless The Name!
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 03:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)This was an obvious gaming attempt that will fail. I will file an arbitration for this action and will continue. Incorrect responses will be responded with approaching the United States Attorneys Office.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 05:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
BeyondTheGreenLine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Racially and religiously motivated blocked essentially based on one single post that when reverted I stood up for myself and made a statement of what was to occur- not a threat. No looking into what occurred was done. Moderator appears to have made a reaction in order to make what was probably an annoyance to him go away. However, what I was trying to correct got 20 million people killed and at least 6 million of them were blatantly murdered, less than a century ago. I edited out a smear campaign attempt on The Jewish People which was an inaccurate representation of sources. The editor was constantly reverting and running to what I think were "friendly moderators" to delegitimize my account in advance. I will continue on and off Wikipedia. This is over a single edit! BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 06:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Whatever the reason is you are here, it isn't to build an encyclopedia. At a minimum, you must withdraw any and all legal threats before unblocking you can be considered. While we cannot stop you from using any legal rights you might have, you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia, nor can you edit if you have a legal action underway. The threats must be withdrawn, and any legal actions concluded, before you can edit. I also interpret you saying that "I will continue on and off Wikipedia" as a threat to engage in sockpuppetry; if that is what you are going to do, there there is nothing else to say here. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2021 (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.
BeyondTheGreenLine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe you are misunderstanding my statements but I also know that others often on this platform do intentionally "misunderstand" in a feigned fashion (I am not accusing you of this - It is just clear that it happens). My statement about "on and off Wikipedia" was referring to the harassment I felt I was experiencing - which is a crime and not a civil matter. If someone was espousing terrorism and another editor stated something to the effect of "If you don't stop I'm going to authorities", that isn't a 'legal threat' in the way that the policy is intending to mean - I can't imagine that it would be. The 'legal threat' is referring to civil actions, which I don't intend to do. Either way, as of now, no actions have been taken and aren't intended to be taken. I intend to go through the normal Wikipedia process to try and get the anti-Semitic statements that are false representations of sources removed. I understand why you may think that I am not here to build an encyclopedia because when everyone states over and over a mistruth, it easily bleeds into other's opinions because people don't have enough time to really look into it. This statement about not being here to make an encyclopedia (which is supposed to be factual/objective by definition) is not true and the following shows my history on this platform:
I made one edit a few months back having to do with Arutz Sheva's location. I changed the location from "Beit El" to "Beit El, Samaria". Which is the preferred location of the subjects of the article (that should say a little bit about me. I wasn't trying to change Jenin, West Bank to Jenin, Samaria or something like that.) After being immediately given a "exclamation box" about the policy, I recognized I didn't have much ground to stand on but still stated I thought the policy should be changed. That should show I am here to legitimately edit. Also keep in mind that the person that reverted my edit on Arutz Sheva is an account that runs 'workshops' on Wikipedia to help make the platform exhibit pro-Palestine viewpoints, so it isn't like these warnings are coming from objective accounts. The second edit I attempted was simply to erase a portion of the Noahidism page that, as stated above, falsely claims the sources say the Chabad Lubavitch Rabbis are racist and supremacists. The page was locked after a single edit. This isn't like an ongoing thing with my account and several other editors were upset about the statements as well. The editor that placed the statements in that location, doubled up the sources also to have them twice in one sentence and when reverted does not cite where in the source that the opinion is coming from - it looks funny.
Please lift my ban, I would appreciate it. All I am trying to do is make the Encyclopedia objective and accurate and that means taking out Anti-Semitic statements that are false one to reality as well as to the sources used. Has racism ever existed in the Jewish world, yes, it's a world problem, and for someone to be so arrogant to state it never has would be absurd as to claim Jews aren't humans- but the Lubavitch movement is not one of those groups espousing these problematic ideas. The problem is in fact here quite the opposite, where a form of racism is calling a non-racist group racist. With that said, I request my ban be lifted. I would also like my request for moderation to be given. Frankly, I think it will have to be arbitrated because the actions of the current moderators show a patriotic tendencies towards making sure the anti-Semitic statements stay up for others to read. I know that Wikipedia requests moderation first though so I will start their, which is what I was requesting when the account was blocked. If you look closely over the history of this reversion on the Noahidism page, it appears like the editor is camping on the page to make sure the statements stay up.
Lastly, I would like to mention that it was odd to me that the Palestinian Conflict was mentioned by the editor that wanted the anti-Semitic statements to be kept up as some sort of justification that my account should be reprimanded. This does not make sense. The only thing in the edited portion that I can see he may be referring to is about the Temple Mount Institute, which really is about the Jewish People rebuilding their Temple and has no bearing on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. To say so means that talk of any Jewish Eschatology is in fact part of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Which means editors can be reprimanded for simply mentioning Jewish Eschatology as opposed to Christian or Muslim eschatology. That is the first problem. The second problem is that Palestine isn't even mentioned in the sentence that I edited.
As requested above, please remove the ban so I can go through the regular Wikipedia process to ask for the anti-Semitic statements to be removed from the Noahidism page. Thank you. BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please condense this to 100 or 200 words. We don't need your life story. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2021 (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.
The way that was worded was so rude. I'd like an arbitration. I will file one. Thanks.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 18:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
BeyondTheGreenLine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Final attempt to have block removed without seeking further action. The previous attempt (not the first one the second one) was extremely rude in the way it expressed an alleged word limit. Extremely degrading and dehumanizing given what I wrote. I just want to go through the regular Wikipedia process to try and make Wikipedia more accurate and better by removing false Anti-Semitism statements. Please unblock, otherwise I will seek other appropriate action here on Wikipedia. Further, no indication of continuing and the block was in its first instance indefinite. The whole thing looks out of line with Wikipedia's own policies, not to mention the taunting message from the last refusal - I'm trying to edit out things that got family members of mine and other's murdered, and my posts in the situation made that pretty clear and the response was "we don't want your life story" which wasn't even what my request was about. Word Count: 157 BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 22:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Until your legal threats are withdrawn, nothing else you post here will be considered. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:00, 18 January 2021 (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.
BeyondTheGreenLine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am confused as to why my alleged legal threats continue to be mentioned. Their were never legal threats and it keeps getting repeated as though it is true. There isn't anything to be withdrawn because nothing was ever made. So I guess in a sense, yes it is withdrawn - but only the perceived threats. No threats were ever made. Please look into what it is you are declining more before declining. Thank you. BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 00:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your response to Jpgordon below suggests you aren't really interested in meeting us even halfway. This request is one past the amount most people, many less querulous than you have been, are allowed before we cut off talk page access. And this request has proved why three is usually enough. So I am revoking talk page access and any further attempts to get yourself out of this little jam will have to be done through UTRS. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2021 (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.
Note from an observer: "the person that reverted my edit on Arutz Sheva is an account that runs 'workshops' on Wikipedia to help make the platform exhibit pro-Palestine viewpoints"
. That person was me and I have never run a workshop or anything similar about any aspect of Wikipedia editing. Zerotalk 00:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your legal threat would be here. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
If you view that as a legal threat I don't but yes then, whatever you perceive as such has been clearly rescinded and just for comfort I'll state it again, its rescinded.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 00:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I also think it is not accurate to view anything I said toward Zero as a legal threat. I thought you were speaking of GenoV84.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 00:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, I don't like the idea of workshops being run that are intended to push a certain viewpoint but if it is allowed I will intend to do the same. I don't have time to dig up right now what it is I read but I did read about "workshops" being done. It is unfortunate if I have drawn an account into this that isn't truly attributable to the "workshops" but I did read it and can get it later if necessary. No one is going to get sued here - is that good enough? False statements though I think need to be removed and will engage the appropriate process to do so.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 01:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I would though also like to put in addition, the 'workshops' issue is a distraction and has nothing to do with the block on my account.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 01:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I also think this would be best solved by Palestinian and Jewish Wikipedians. Not because I think the block has anything to do with it because it doesn't, but because others have drawn the issue in based on my description justifying why I am on Wikipedia. I described my history here based on a claim I wasn't here to create an encyclopedia (which is untrue). This post was a single edit arguably about the conflict but not really and the second edit described had to do with anti-semitic statements misrepresenting sources.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 01:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)