46.116.69.91

March 2023

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Frank Oz, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced oder poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Rodney Ascher. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

How is the fact that Rodney Ascher is Jewish, which is sourced in the article, "unsourced, poorly sourced or defamatory"? 46.116.69.91 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry does not make a person Jewish on Wikipedia. To be Jewish on Wikipedia, one must embrace Jewish culture or Jewish religious beliefs. Everybody else would be categorized as having "Jewish descent." Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Unblocking

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I feel I was fairly unblocked. I edited some 200 articles of Jewish American directors to include Jewish categories, mostly those of Jewish American film directors. The Admins's discussion that lad to me getting banned concluded that this was surely done maliciously and as a form of "Jew-tagging". Not true, I simply included this information which was already given in the articles themselves to the "Jewish American film directors" category which I did not create and was simply adding to. If you go to Spike Lee's article, you'll see that he's under the African-American film directors, Jordan Peele as well. What's the difference? I completely reject this notion that this was done to Jew-tag these people, I'm an Israeli Jew myself, like the discussion implies, and simply added to this already existing category. They also give an ignorant explanation regarding some imagined difference between a person "coming from a Jewish family" or being a "secular Jew". Being Jewish is an ethnic identity as well as a religion, it's completely irrelevant if a person is practicing or not to be considered Jewish, this isn't Islam and Christianity. So what I was doing is no different than what the person who added the African-American film director category to these two Afrinca-American film directors. And to add insult to injury, not only was all my work completely undone, wI was banned too without being able to defend myself or at least explain anything. Thanks for reading.

Decline reason:

You can't have been "fairly unblocked" because you haven't been unblocked.

Seriously, this request is going nowhere. Not only do you fail to assume good faith in ascribing ulterior motives to the blocking admin, you fail completely to address the issues of you possibly using multiple accounts that underlie the block. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 13 March 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.

46.116.69.91 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm requesting another admin to kindly look at my unblock request. There seems to be some misunderstanding which I'm now aware of. In the discussion that lead to my blocking, the admin who blocked me mentions I'm in fact a "LTA sock". I googled it and it seems he or she thinks that I'm using one of multiple accounts. This is again repeated by the admin who declined my previous unblock request. This is fiction, I'm not using multiple accounts, I'm not "evading the law" by any means, I don't know what gave this idea that I am a "LTA sock", because I'm not, I don't have multiple accounts, I was never blocked or had any issues like this before, this is just not true. Please, if you can, look at it again and perhaps reconsider. I'm simply an Israeli who added "Jewish American film director" to multiple Jewish American film directors, not to "Jew-tag" anyone, not to "name the jew" (this is all from the admin discussion that blocked me) but simply to add this category to these people. If you still think this is unconvincing, I'll understand, but please give my case another look, I meant no harm whatsoever.

Decline reason:

The block has expired. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:27, 20 March 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.

46.116.69.91 (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Ponyo: This block is set to expire tomorrow. You claim that this is a case of WP:LTA. Should then the block be extended? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Vanjagenije: The appeal displays a better understanding of English than the sockmaster I had originally connected to this IP, which means it's likely a false positive. That being said, the concerns raised about the extensive religious categorization remain. When the block expires the IP needs to follow WP:BLPCAT, WP:EGRS and WP:CATDEF very carefully.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

---