| Revision as of 02:53, 13 June 2009 editNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits Removing template to allow the proper categorization per SPI procedure. The category will still be on the talk page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:35, 4 June 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Blocked== | ==Blocked== | ||
| You have been blocked indef as a sock of Jossi. Onwiki evidence was confirmed by CU. Contact arbcom if you have questions. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | You have been blocked indef as a sock of Jossi. Onwiki evidence was confirmed by CU. Contact arbcom if you have questions. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I will also note that I have performed a detailed analysis of some evidence, and certify the basis for this block. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Sock identification == | == Sock identification == | ||
| I wish I did not have to write this note. But evading an Arbcom decision of this kind is completely unacceptable; as an ex-admin who has been highly regarded by many and greatly involved in the development of editing norms and the community, you know that better than most. This was a deliberate attempt to evade a dispute resolution. The evidence was passed to myself too, and while I am still reviewing it, it already appears to be quite strong. | I wish I did not have to write this note. But evading an Arbcom decision of this kind is completely unacceptable; as an ex-admin who has been highly regarded by many and greatly involved in the development of editing norms and the community, you know that better than most. This was a deliberate attempt to evade a dispute resolution. The evidence was passed to myself too, and while I am still reviewing it, it already appears to be quite strong. | ||
| The ] contemplates ordinary return to the dispute area and editing there. It does not even begin to contemplate socking for the purpose. Since your main account "]" is not editing, there is no benefit or purpose in blocking that account per the remedy or ], as it would not prevent or deter any disruption or breach. Instead I warn that if another attempt is made to edit the disputed areas by a sock-puppet account or similar gross breach of trust, then it is very likely to lead to communal discussion and quite possibly a proposal for a community ban or similar strong remedy. I would ask you not to do this any more, and if you use other sock accounts in this area then to quietly set them aside. If you do wish to edit these areas, then do so after resolving the disputes as directed in the remedy. If you do not wish to, then I ask you not to put yourself other editors in the invidious position of having to consider action of this kind. |
The ] contemplates ordinary return to the dispute area and editing there. It does not even begin to contemplate socking for the purpose. Since your main account "]" is not editing, there is no benefit or purpose in blocking that account per the remedy or ], as it would not prevent or deter any disruption or breach. Instead I warn that if another attempt is made to edit the disputed areas by a sock-puppet account or similar gross breach of trust, then it is very likely to lead to communal discussion and quite possibly a proposal for a community ban or similar strong remedy. I would ask you not to do this any more, and if you use other sock accounts in this area then to quietly set them aside. If you do wish to edit these areas, then do so after resolving the disputes as directed in the remedy. If you do not wish to, then I ask you not to put yourself other editors in the invidious position of having to consider action of this kind. | ||
| You've been a good contributor for a long time at project level and in many content areas. You built up a reputation in those areas for good, stable, thoughtful editing. Please do continue, and don't break that habit. This is both a first and only formal warning from me, and a personal plea from a co-editor. | You've been a good contributor for a long time at project level and in many content areas. You built up a reputation in those areas for good, stable, thoughtful editing. Please do continue, and don't break that habit. This is both a first and only formal warning from me, and a personal plea from a co-editor. | ||
| : ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | : ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Grab some glory, and a barnstar== | |||
| Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the ]. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the <nowiki>{{copyedit}}</nowiki> tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. <big>]</big><small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:35, 4 June 2022
Blocked
You have been blocked indef as a sock of Jossi. Onwiki evidence was confirmed by CU. Contact arbcom if you have questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will also note that I have performed a detailed analysis of some evidence, and certify the basis for this block. Tiptoety 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sock identification
I wish I did not have to write this note. But evading an Arbcom decision of this kind is completely unacceptable; as an ex-admin who has been highly regarded by many and greatly involved in the development of editing norms and the community, you know that better than most. This was a deliberate attempt to evade a dispute resolution. The evidence was passed to myself too, and while I am still reviewing it, it already appears to be quite strong.
The Arbcom remedy contemplates ordinary return to the dispute area and editing there. It does not even begin to contemplate socking for the purpose. Since your main account "Jossi" is not editing, there is no benefit or purpose in blocking that account per the remedy or blocking policy, as it would not prevent or deter any disruption or breach. Instead I warn that if another attempt is made to edit the disputed areas by a sock-puppet account or similar gross breach of trust, then it is very likely to lead to communal discussion and quite possibly a proposal for a community ban or similar strong remedy. I would ask you not to do this any more, and if you use other sock accounts in this area then to quietly set them aside. If you do wish to edit these areas, then do so after resolving the disputes as directed in the remedy. If you do not wish to, then I ask you not to put yourself other editors in the invidious position of having to consider action of this kind.
You've been a good contributor for a long time at project level and in many content areas. You built up a reputation in those areas for good, stable, thoughtful editing. Please do continue, and don't break that habit. This is both a first and only formal warning from me, and a personal plea from a co-editor.
Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)