User talk:Raye Smith

December 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Political status of Western Sahara, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a valid reason for the removal in the talk page discussion, though I acknowledge it wasn't included in the edit summary. I've clarified my rationale in the editing summary now.

My removal is based on constructive considerations. Disagreement with the edit does not automatically warrant a reversal. The United Nations General Secretariat (UNGS) report in 2002 refers to Morocco as the administrative power in Western Sahara, not as an occupying force. This contrasts with the original source, which appears to draw its own conclusion without referencing any international body. I believe this distinction is important for a comprehensive and neutral presentation of the information.

Thank you Raye Smith (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion doesn't justify the removal of content that is attributed to a scholarly source. If you spent some time reading the source in question says, you'd understand the position of the UN (which describes it as what it is, an occupation). I also suggest you familiarize yourself with the difference between a UN report and a UN resolution, though you don't have to in this instance since the scholars analysed the primary sources. M.Bitton (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a more respectful tone in our discussion.

Unlike you, I don't hold a specific opinion or ideology on this matter, as you pointed out yourself ("describes it as what it is, an occupation"). I suggest following your own advice since none of the 31 United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions addressing the situation in Western Sahara term it as an occupation. Instead, they refer to it as a disputed region, a nuance that seems overlooked by some scholars. It's noteworthy that these scholars base their conclusions on two non-binding United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions, neglecting the perspectives presented in UNSC resolutions or the insights of the United Nations General Secretariat (UNGS), as exemplified by the personal envoy's report I provided.

Choosing to ignore the resolutions of international bodies over a secondary source appears to betray the pursuit of truth for ideological beliefs.

I find your accusations rather peculiar; notably, even Morocco itself doesn't claim to be an administrative power.

I kindly request that you refrain from making such ideological charges and consider reverting the edits. Persistent editing conflicts won't contribute to the resolution of the matter at hand, and the status of Western Sahara won't be altered tomorrow because of an ongoing editing war Raye Smith (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you started personalizing the discussion, I suggest you start by explaining how the tone is not respectful and then substantiate the Unlike you, I don't hold a specific opinion or ideology on this matter assertion. M.Bitton (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" I also suggest you familiarize yourself with the difference between a UN report and a UN resolution"

"Your opinion doesn't justify the removal of content that is attributed to a scholarly source"

'

You initiated the personalization of the discussion, and I responded by highlighting what appears to be your ideological stance on the matter. I want to emphasize that the accusations you're making don't align with the facts. Even Morocco rejects the notion that it serves as the administrative power and has not argued in favor of such a position. Raye Smith (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I don't hold a specific opinion or ideology on this matter I expect a valid explanation for this assertion that you seem to be doubling down on with what appears to be your ideological stance. M.Bitton (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i did give valid explanation to that assertion directly quoting from you , but it appears that further discussion may not be productive at this time. In light of the ongoing disagreements, I am referring the matter to user and article sanctions for a more formal resolution. Raye Smith (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political status of Western Sahara. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason for my block seems to be the accusation of being a sockpuppet and allegedly used for illegitimate reasons. However, my contributions so far have been minor edits based on two sources I mentioned in talk page, focusing on the topic I edited, as was intended.

I find it perplexing that the administration decided to side with M.Bitton, despite clear differences in profiles, as acknowledged by the one who blocked me. This decision seems to stem from my disagreement with M.Bitton's choice to ignore the UNSC, a primary source, in favor of a secondary source.

This is my first interaction with M.Bitton, and being blocked for simply pointing out an error feels unjust.

Raye Smith (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In this request you don't actually deny that you are a sock puppet. I agree with the blocking admin that it doesn't seem like this is your first account. If that's true, now is the time to say so. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

As I explained in my initial request, and I should add it now, I am simply not a sock puppet. This is my first attempt to start editing and contributing to Wikipedia, and somehow, I didn't even last 24 hours. My contributions have been minor edits based on two sources I mentioned in my talk page, staying focused on the topic I edited, as intended. Being accused of being a sockpuppet is just unfounded. Raye Smith (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Simple denial is insufficient. You need to address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morrocan. Yamla (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I've placed this at the bottom for proper flow, and removed the formatting issues introduced by using the reply feature(which currently does not accommodate unblock requests well, the edit window should be opened directly for unblock requests). 331dot (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else will review your request, but it might help if you agreed to not make edits related to Western Sahara. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got banned for pointing out a superior source on minor edits related to Western Sahara. Is there an unwritten rule on this topic on Wikipedia? Raye Smith (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

In my second appeal, the mention of "Simple denial is insufficient" is not applicable to my case. I argue that the ban on my account was unjust because no specific concerns were raised, and the basis for the ban seems to be a subjective judgment akin to "look like a duck" and favoritism towards one side over the other. I want to emphasize that this account is my primary profile, and I maintain that the block was unjust. I find the reasons provided for the refusal of the appeal to be utterly ridiculous, especially considering that no concerns were raised when the initial block occurred. The initial response even pointed out a lack of denial without providing substantive reasons. I want to reiterate that this is my only profile, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. - Raye Smith (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The above discussion with M.Bitton shows both an inability to assume good faith and a battleground mentality, the latter perception of which is reinforced by this request. Coupled with the history of this account and the broad, credible suspicions the editor was not new when they began, this is not an unblock I will be making. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

unblock decline January 17, 2024 and subsequent edits

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here " :The conversation with M.Bitton highlights a clear inability to assume good faith and a mentality akin to a battleground. M.Bitton not only undid my edits but also started editor war. Upon examining his editing history, it appears questionable, making it difficult for me to assume good faith on his part. Additionally, I found myself compelled to defend my position, which he interpreted as a reason to file a complaint. It's worth noting that the person who banned me acknowledged the baselessness of M.Bitton's claims, yet I still ended up blocked. :The use of "credible suspicions" without concrete evidence raises concerns. This situation seems to go beyond a simple dispute and ventures into the territory of an abuse of power, favoring one editor over another without adequate justification. :If this were indeed a secondary account, the logical step would have been to abandon it and create a new one to continue without any issues. The fact that no one seems to suspect such behavior adds weight to my argument that this ban is unjust and reaches a level of abuse of power. The lack of suspicion regarding the creation of a new account underscores the unfairness and unwarranted nature of the ban. :In the original post, one administrator has already acknowledged that it "appears technically unrelated." Despite this, individuals like Rosguill and Daniel, who initially expressed doubts about the accuracy of the report, ended up agreeing with M.Bitton. Subsequently, I found myself banned. It's perplexing that the person who filed a false report, instigating an editorial war, faced no consequences. This discrepancy raises serious questions about the fairness and consistency of the moderation process Raye Smith (talk) 10:29 am, 5 January 2024, Friday (12 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Per Special:permalink/1195598426#Unblock discussion Despite couching, user has not addressed the issues with their conduct instead of attempted blame shifting. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information.. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock discussion

What should you have done instead of edit warring? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misrepresented what was written in the sock puppet investigation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see unblocking you to edit about Political status of Western Sahara. What topics could you edit about in a non confrontational manner? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you jumped into a content dispute and accused another editor of political bias or some such. Hmmmm. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then you follow that with a string of personal attacks and aspersions against other editors. Again, hmmm. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself currently blocked, and I'd like to address the situation with fairness in mind. The editing conflict began with M. Bitton, who initiated an edit war. I actively participated in both the discussion and editing processes, supporting my edits with sources from UNGS and UNCA. The central point of contention arose from a straightforward statement: 'Your opinion doesn't justify the removal of content that is attributed to a scholarly source.' Unfortunately, my edits were reversed without a thorough consideration of the situation, and it seems that there may be a tendency to jump to conclusions.I want to clarify that I did not misrepresent the details in the sock puppet investigation. The initial judgment was labeled as 'technically unrelated.' It's important to ensure that all perspectives are taken into account to maintain a fair and accurate representation of the situation. Raye Smith (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated an edit war. Nonsense. Please describe what you should have done instead of edit warring and instead of making a personal attack. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you fail to adequately address the reasons for your block instead of blaming others and trying to justify your behavior, and if no one beats me to it, I intend to decline this request tomorrow. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested read: WP:EW, WP:DR, WP:NPA. Please apply this information to your past conduct and what your conduct would be like were you to be unblocked. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]