| Revision as of 20:55, 15 January 2010 editRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Unblocked: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:12, 23 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (59 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=It is one thing if I continued to edit-war, but I stopped reverting. From 1 November 2009 to June 2010, User:Number 57 made no edits at all to the talk page. Other users weighed in their two cents and it seemed (per User:Jonund: "Maybe it's time to leave this discussion and use the energy on something else. I think Shamir1 has settled it with conclusive arguments and rebuttal of counterarguments.") that we had reached consensus. Other users had reverted Number 57, and I did too just a few times when it appeared consensus was reached and per WP:V. Once it appeared that he reverted again with '''no''' explanation or support for his edits, I immediately discussion and invited him to chime in and warned against edit-warring. On June 10, I went step-by-step again with Number 57 to explain our concerns with his argument. I also opted for editors' assistance per dispute resolution at this time. We avoided 3RR and waited five days for him to voice any argument. It seemed again that consensus was reached; only once after that did I revert and I stopped since then. :My edit was accepted by a majority of editors on the Kadima article. I did not "return periodically." I kept up discussion and withdrew from being dragged into an edit war once it appeared User:Number 57 would continue to immediately revert others without responding. I stopped all edits to the article and continued discussion in ]. Number 57 continued to revert without providing an explanation in discussion and I and other editors had asked him to explain his lone argument. He immediately reverted any and every user without discussing it first, as we did, in talk. :At this time, I did not retreat to edit warring, even though I was far from violating a 24-hour 3RR. Instead, I opted for dispute resolution. You may check my history since my last edit on Kadima. Despite support from other editors, I stopped all reverts and continued to engage cooperatively in discussion, discussing all possible edits. I then proceeded to ask for editor assistance, again, this time from a currently active editor, to resolve our dispute. I don't understand why I am being punished now after I intentionally held back from reverting. It is clear from my last revert--which was made the last time only when we assumed consensus--that my actions on Kadima since then was (1) discuss, and (2) search for ways to resolve our dispute without reverting. :At this time you may notice on ] that Number 57's edits have in fact already been reverted by another editor on grounds of WP policy. I am saddened that I, after deliberately withdrawing from an edit war and instead engaging in discussion and dispute resolution, am blocked, and another editor who had reverted without cooperating in talk nor inviting dispute resolution, continues an edit war. I am not blaming him for my actions; I take full responsibility. But I am trying to point out a discrepancy since the admin who blocked me did so after I raised the issue of, primarily, Number 57's smears against me (but also mentioned his edit-warring) on the administators' noticeboard. No editor reported me. :That said, I apologize for any wrongdoing on my part that did not prevent disruption. I am and have been happy to listen to outside advice and guidance and apologize if any of my actions constituted a threat to Misplaced Pages harmony. I understand my past experience on Misplaced Pages had included edit-warring, and I have learned my lesson. In this case I tried to show restraint by avoiding any immediate reverts and I truly believed I was editing responsibly and tried to avoid an edit war by keeping up talk, gaining consensus from others, and asking for dispute resolution. I ask that you kindly remove my block so that I may continue the dispute resolution that has begun. I will continue to refrain from reverting that article, and continue talking and cooperating with admins and third opinions. Thank you. --] (]) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)|decline=I have just spent an inordinate amount of time reading a long, long litany of problematic behaviour and argumentative confrontation, including the material to which I was referred below but also the circumstances surrounding your extensive block history. What it all boils down to is (a) it is evident to me that you violated the clear and unambiguous term of your previous unblocking, and that this specific block is amply justified, and (b) your ability to contribute to this project has now been so completely overshadowed by your ability to frustrate the contribution of other users that there is no real point in allowing you to tip that balance any further in the non-useful direction. You note above that "I have learned my lesson"; I completely disagree. You were told in December of 2009 that your behaviour had to change. Instead, you are now gaming the system to get your own way in a dismayingly expert manner. I think it's time we cut you loose. ]:<small>]</small> 14:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{archive box}} | |||
| :I won't bother to respond to any of the above, but I strongly suggest that anyone wanting to get involved has a good read of ] to get a clear picture of the actual issue at hand. ] ]] 08:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::The admin considering the above unblock request should also see ], which deals with (amongst other things) the question of whether Shamir1 has been edit warring, and also suggests canvassing in an attempt to achieve (in effect) edit warring by proxy. ] (]) 08:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''3''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | |||
| |- | |||
| |}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot--> | |||
| == Your email == | |||
| I received your emails. Thank you. No further correspondence with me is necessary. ] <small>(])</small> 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == New 3RR report. You may not have any warnings left == | |||
| Hello Shamir1. See ]. Feel free to respond to that complaint. You've already been blocked four times for 3RR, which can't be chalked up to misunderstanding. You seem to fit the pattern of a long-term edit warrior. If you would wait until at least one person supports your edit on the article's talk page, you would not be having this problem. Be aware that if an admin closes this 3RR case closes with a block, it may be a long one, because you seem very resistant to following our policies. Unless you show us that you've had a dramatic change of heart, I don't see much future for you on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:3 months|a period of '''3 months'''|a short time}} to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ]{{#if:| at ]}}. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 06:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)}}</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> Long-term warring at ], which continued after four previous blocks for 3RR. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that you are willing to follow Misplaced Pages policies, which require a sincere effort to find consensus, and a willingness to abide by decisions reached on article talk pages. The full report that led to this block is at ]. ] (]) 06:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I had long suggested dispute resolution myself, and I am saddened by that simplistic description of my many edits, since I feel I have offered constructive additions to many articles in line with Misplaced Pages policy. I truly only thought I was doing my best with some contentious information on the article. I respect your warning but I feel like I should have been given a chance to respond. I would have gladly reverted or accepted a revert upon now logging on given your concerns. I did not ignore this message; please allow me the opportunity to correct this. I regret not having had this opportunity (as other editors have) by not having been able to log in earlier, and I kindly ask you to consider this. For an explanation of my edit: I feel this situation is skewed since only George's narrative and perspective is given, attempting to paint a bad picture of me in order to block me. The conclusions he made about me are not true. I very much tried to avoid an edit war so I kept many of George's edits but put them in the proper places in the article, as done with other article. George constantly reverted without any regard to ] or addressing the concerns I brought up. I do not see why George's edits/reverts are acceptable when his lacked consensus. The 3RR Rule I violated in the past were done in the past and done sincerely out of mistake, however I must note that George reported me for reverting 3 times over a period that was '''not''' 24 hours, and I was unaware that is could still be a violation. If this is so, then User:George, has committed this well more than one time himself, unfortunately intensifying an edit war. He seemed very eager to block me for the very things he was doing--constantly reverting, engaging in edit wars. However, in any case, I have long abandoned that practice and kept an eye over myself. It would have been more productive if George engaged in discussion and instead took the time to opt for proper dispute resolution. I would be happy to do this. I wish I would at least have had a chance to defend myself. My edits were not significant ones; I did not compromise the integrity of the article, ]. The changes I made are of course noted when you compare edits, and I think it is clear why I thought an editor's edits seemed loaded and biased. Is this really deserving of a 3-month block? I have made many constructive edits to this article and others. George had been using sources that were by any definition POV to include it in the body of the article. I did not blindly revert; as an editor I placed certain information in the appropriate sections (i.e., in "Criticism"), and I added sources to some of the uncited claims on the page. I agreed that '']'' can be used to state the POV of the authors, but George insisted on including it as part of the article's neutral text. I was opposed to some of the loaded language User:George used that was uncalled for, which unfortunately gave a distorted picture of the subject of the article. The other articles on Misplaced Pages that cite this document do so in exactly the same fashion as I proposed. We may not agree, my point here is not to convince you, but I think you can understand my position and why I felt this way. I think the article has a problem with neutrality and strongly encourage an editor to note that with a tag in the article. In the last few weeks, in a period that is longer than a month I only edited the article a handful of times (I believe only 3). Each time I clearly explained each and every individual edit, clearly explaining to George why some of his edits were loaded and violated the rules of neutrality. I gave him several examples, engaged in civil discussion, gave him ample time to review and consider this. Again this was over a particularly long period, my and George's (who filed this request) actions have been quite similar. Even if one would criticize my or George's actions, I do not see it close to deserving of a 3-month block. I made use of the discussion page and raised valid concerns of ]. This seems very extreme; If I did something incorrect here, I will stop, since I really only thought I was being civil by engaging in dialogue on the discussion page. I did not think that what I was doing was wrong; I was trying to express concerns of NPOV to an editor. If this was a mistake then I am sorry and I will completely refrain from editing that article altogether until a formal dispute resolution process is completed, because I think the the concerns I raised were legitimate and would be easily understandable to others. I am sorry if I misunderstood or anything, and again, I am committed to behave as a responsible editor. I apologize if I did anything out of line, and will aim to cooperate with a formal mode of dispute resolution. Thanks for your understanding. --] (]) 04:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)|decline=Your request is very ], but if I understand correctly, you are saying you didn't do anything, it's all a misunderstanding, and your really really sorry and won't do it again. Those are contradictory statements. Given your previous blocks for edit warring it is difficult to believe this was just a misunderstanding, and if it was, what is it you are falling all over yourself apologizing for? ] (]) 22:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Could you summarize your unblock request, please? Massive walls of text are more apt to be ignored. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 08:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yup. I won't review that long a request, either. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you can't give a reason in 100 words or less it cannot be a cogent reason. Impassioned argument in the face of reality does not work. --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 21:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please read the ], and - as recommended - provide a short reasoning for your unblock request. (]<span style="border:1px solid red;">''' ] '''</span>]) 12:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I respect your warning, and was unaware that my rather infrequent edits could constitute an edit war. I did not blindly revert. I was always civil, engaged in dialogue, and consistently kept up discussion in talk, explaining why an edit could violate ]. I am committed to editing responsibly, and did not remove much material but rather I carefully organized them in appropriate sections in the article. I believed that I was editing responsibly this way, but appears that this is not case. If this is true, then I have learned my lesson, and I would like to continue to make constructive edits to other articles, the vast majority of which have been appreciated and gone by without controversy. As to this article, I do not plan on editing it at all until a formal dispute resolution process is completed, since I believe my concerns are valid and would be easily understandable. The administrator who enforced the block was patient enough to allow me a few days to log on to heed his warning first, but I unfortunately had not logged on until now. I respect this and kindly ask for the opportunity to correct my apparent mistake. Thank you. --] (]) 23:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)|decline=No. Given your history to ] through ] as well as the persistent edit-warring before, I have to agree with Hersfold below that an unblock is not warranted at this time. ] 09:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Normally I would consider this and likely unblock you, however you appear to have a of edit warring, at times continuing your edit warring whilst logged out. Since you should have learned your lesson two or three blocks ago, I'm reluctant to accept this request. Waiting for comments from other administrators. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 07:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Comment: I do not have a "history" of using sock puppet accounts or anything of that sort. Please ]. I think this impression may be skewed since it is based on the narrative of the other editor engaged in the edit war. There was one time where I did not see myself logged out and I made one edit. I filled out an edit summary in the usual fashion thinking I was logged on and it was the first revert--in other words, was not used to evade any sort of violation. I logged on immediately afterward. It was one edit (with an IP address, not an account), it was not to evade a block, and it did not happen again. Thank you. --] (]) 07:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=For the record, I never used a sock to evade my block, and never did I ever continue edit war whilst logged out. There was only one instance where I was not aware that I was logged out and I had reverted, and that was due to carelessness. Please do not let that cloud my sincerity. As to the other edit-warring allegations, this was not the same as I unfortunately did not think that three edits in a period that lasted longer than a month could be considered an edit war. I understand it may be easy to look at past violations and think that I 'learned my lesson,' but I think that you may also understand how an editor may not think (albeit erroneously) that this time his infrequent edits explained in talk could be considered an edit war. The administrator who enforced the block was patient enough to allow me a few days to log on to heed his warning first, but I unfortunately had not logged on until now. I respect this and kindly ask for the opportunity to correct my apparent mistake. Please review my comments: :I respect your warning, and was unaware that my rather infrequent edits could constitute an edit war. I did not blindly revert. I was always civil, engaged in dialogue, and consistently ] discussion in talk, explaining why an edit could violate ]. I am committed to editing responsibly, and did not remove information but rather I carefully organized it into appropriate sections in the article. I believed that I was editing responsibly this way, but appears that this is not case. If this is true, then I have learned my lesson, and I would like to continue to make constructive edits to other articles, the vast majority of which have been appreciated and gone by without controversy. As to this article, I do not plan on editing it at all until a formal dispute resolution process is completed, since I believe my concerns are valid and would be easily understandable. Thank you. --] (]) 07:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)|decline=You still don't seem to understand why you have been blocked; I suggest you educate yourself by reading ]. Per the above, I also don't think an unblock is warranted at this time. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 08:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Shamir1, I have received your email. I suggest you contact ], the original blocking administrator to request a review of your block. -''']'''<sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 05:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblocked == | |||
| You were blocked for three months on 11 December 2090 following a discussion at : | |||
| :'''Result''' - Blocked three months. It is not easy to deal with editors who constantly fight the same war and continue to earn blocks, but leave Misplaced Pages for long periods in between. Indef is one option. This three-month block should be long enough to get his attention, and any admin may lift it if Shamir1 gives some evidence that he is willing to follow our policies. The record gives little reason for optimism. ] (]) 06:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is prepared to accept your reassurances on this one occasion and will unblock you following your email acceptance of the following terms: | |||
| # You are banned from editing ] for a period of one year; | |||
| # You are formally warned to avoid any type of edit-warring or ownership of articles especially returning periodically to revert to a preferred version. Repetition of these behaviours will lead to the block being reinstated. | |||
| Once the terms are accepted, a copy of this message will also be posted on your talk page, with a brief summary at ]. | |||
| The email acceptance was received on 14 January 2010. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>]</sup> 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:12, 23 February 2023
Shamir1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is one thing if I continued to edit-war, but I stopped reverting. From 1 November 2009 to June 2010, User:Number 57 made no edits at all to the talk page. Other users weighed in their two cents and it seemed (per User:Jonund: "Maybe it's time to leave this discussion and use the energy on something else. I think Shamir1 has settled it with conclusive arguments and rebuttal of counterarguments.") that we had reached consensus. Other users had reverted Number 57, and I did too just a few times when it appeared consensus was reached and per WP:V. Once it appeared that he reverted again with no explanation or support for his edits, I immediately reopened discussion and invited him to chime in and warned against edit-warring. On June 10, I went step-by-step again with Number 57 to explain our concerns with his argument. I also opted for editors' assistance per dispute resolution at this time. We avoided 3RR and waited five days for him to voice any argument. It seemed again that consensus was reached; only once after that did I revert and I stopped since then. :My edit was accepted by a majority of editors on the Kadima article. I did not "return periodically." I kept up discussion and withdrew from being dragged into an edit war once it appeared User:Number 57 would continue to immediately revert others without responding. I stopped all edits to the article and continued discussion in Talk:Kadima. Number 57 continued to revert without providing an explanation in discussion and I and other editors had asked him to explain his lone argument. He immediately reverted any and every user without discussing it first, as we did, in talk. :At this time, I did not retreat to edit warring, even though I was far from violating a 24-hour 3RR. Instead, I opted for dispute resolution. You may check my history since my last edit on Kadima. Despite support from other editors, I stopped all reverts and continued to engage cooperatively in discussion, discussing all possible edits. I then proceeded to ask for editor assistance, again, this time from a currently active editor, to resolve our dispute. I don't understand why I am being punished now after I intentionally held back from reverting. It is clear from my last revert--which was made the last time only when we assumed consensus--that my actions on Kadima since then was (1) discuss, and (2) search for ways to resolve our dispute without reverting. :At this time you may notice on Kadima that Number 57's edits have in fact already been reverted by another editor on grounds of WP policy. I am saddened that I, after deliberately withdrawing from an edit war and instead engaging in discussion and dispute resolution, am blocked, and another editor who had reverted without cooperating in talk nor inviting dispute resolution, continues an edit war. I am not blaming him for my actions; I take full responsibility. But I am trying to point out a discrepancy since the admin who blocked me did so after I raised the issue of, primarily, Number 57's smears against me (but also mentioned his edit-warring) on the administators' noticeboard. No editor reported me. :That said, I apologize for any wrongdoing on my part that did not prevent disruption. I am and have been happy to listen to outside advice and guidance and apologize if any of my actions constituted a threat to Misplaced Pages harmony. I understand my past experience on Misplaced Pages had included edit-warring, and I have learned my lesson. In this case I tried to show restraint by avoiding any immediate reverts and I truly believed I was editing responsibly and tried to avoid an edit war by keeping up talk, gaining consensus from others, and asking for dispute resolution. I ask that you kindly remove my block so that I may continue the dispute resolution that has begun. I will continue to refrain from reverting that article, and continue talking and cooperating with admins and third opinions. Thank you. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have just spent an inordinate amount of time reading a long, long litany of problematic behaviour and argumentative confrontation, including the material to which I was referred below but also the circumstances surrounding your extensive block history. What it all boils down to is (a) it is evident to me that you violated the clear and unambiguous term of your previous unblocking, and that this specific block is amply justified, and (b) your ability to contribute to this project has now been so completely overshadowed by your ability to frustrate the contribution of other users that there is no real point in allowing you to tip that balance any further in the non-useful direction. You note above that "I have learned my lesson"; I completely disagree. You were told in December of 2009 that your behaviour had to change. Instead, you are now gaming the system to get your own way in a dismayingly expert manner. I think it's time we cut you loose. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:51, 16 June 2010 (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.
- I won't bother to respond to any of the above, but I strongly suggest that anyone wanting to get involved has a good read of Talk:Kadima#Political center and center-left to get a clear picture of the actual issue at hand. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The admin considering the above unblock request should also see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#User:Number_57, which deals with (amongst other things) the question of whether Shamir1 has been edit warring, and also suggests canvassing in an attempt to achieve (in effect) edit warring by proxy. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Your email
I received your emails. Thank you. No further correspondence with me is necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)