| Revision as of 20:53, 17 April 2012 editGrandmaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,547 edits →Disambiguation link notification for April 12← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:18, 17 April 2012 edit undoTimotheus Canens (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| Hi. Please be aware of this report at WP:AE: . Thanks. ]] 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | Hi. Please be aware of this report at WP:AE: . Thanks. ]] 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == April 2012 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been '''] indefinitely''' from editing for blatant bad faith and disruptive attempts to game an editing restriction. The first year of this block is made under the authority of ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] (]) 21:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
Revision as of 21:18, 17 April 2012
| Misplaced Pages:Babel | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
| Search user languages |
One-sided canvassing
You've been warned about one-sided canvassing before. (Your recent efforts are here). You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will continue by notifying everyone else who might be interested. Either notify the individuals who participate in AA but might not share your point of view, or try to leave a notice in a central place, such as Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Azerbaijan. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you. This is not canvassing but a request that targeted self-education and not influencing a discussion on T.Canens' page (note that no one responded on T.Canens page except for Meowy but Meowy hit that talk page for the first time before I posted my message. I specifically mentioned "You can reply on my home page." I did have in mind to post in a central place WikiProject Azerbaijan and WikiProject Armenia but thought it is not appropriate because that would trigger a flood of all kinds of opinions and complicate your job. Posting only on WikiProject Azerbaijan page now is to create an unbalanced notification, since the message will be read by many, many more users compared with the selected few I have picked. Since the quest is of theoretical nature (about seniority) and for self-educating and is not related specifically to the current debate, the best solution in my opinion was and is to pick the brain of totally uninvolved folks. See I picked 3 randomly selected users who together with Lothar and Paul from my previous posting will make independent opinion. Dehr (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Restriction equals censorship. One of the main pillars of Misplaced Pages is that it's free and open for anyone to edit. If you want support, get the attention of the wider community. I'm sure there would be a lot of non involved editors that would be unhappy with the precedent this decision will make. No amount of sockpuppeting justifies restricting articles to genuine new editors. --VartanM (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Deepsea Challenger
random selected self-education question
This post was moved from Talk:Deepsea Challenger as wrong venue. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to pick the brain of more experienced users about the ongoing exchange between and a couple of administrators. Grandmaster suggests to restrict access to some and potentially to all articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan by excluding new users . You can reply on my home page if you wish. Dehr (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Talk:Deepsea Challenger is not the place for this. Please take your concerns to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Ghaibalishen Massacre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Paris Peace Conference, Zangezur and Shosh
- Nagorno-Karabakh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Kingdom of Armenia
- Shelling of Stepanakert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Aghdam
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:AE
Hi. Please be aware of this report at WP:AE: . Thanks. Grandmaster 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
April 2012
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."