| Revision as of 21:01, 6 February 2010 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,176 edits →3rr: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:24, 5 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (82 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== April 2010 == | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' for a period of '''24 hours''' from editing{{#if:| for {{{reason}}}|}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] (]) 20:29, 13 April 2010 (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></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| Didn't you say you was gonna leave wikipedia and never come back? --] (]) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| Your name has been mentioned in connection with a ] case. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' for a period of '''48 hours''' from editing{{#if:| for {{{reason}}}|}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:59, 14 April 2010 (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></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| == January 2010 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] 17:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :DrorK, was your fifth revert in 24 hours. However, if you undo it (self-revert), I will not file a ] report, despite your having violated 3RR anyway. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==AE comment== | |||
| == State of Palestine == | |||
| I realize I may not be welcome here, so feel free to delete this, but, if you dont mind, Id like to try to have a serious conversation. I sincerely hope you dont get blocked for that comment at AE (it was too funny to be blocked for) or the last comment at the All-Palestine talk page. But what you should do, if you wish to continue contributing here, is file an appeal of your sanction. The '''only''' reason I filed that request was because of the continuous insults, if you promise to not continue to do that I would support an appeal. When you want to, you can make intelligent and reasoned arguments, as you did in the last comment at the All-Palestine page. But when you first came back you did not do that, you just continuously insulted me and Harlan. Whatever you may think of me personally, I dont think the way to get these articles in shape is to "snipe" "pro-Israel" editors; I think we need "pro-Israel" editors, just the ones that are able to be reasonable and argue logically. You can do that. I know you are a smart person, you know three languages nearly as well as I know one, you are well-read and can make a coherent argument. So, if you can just be that smart person and not a complete dick I think you should be allowed to edit in the topic area. If you ask me the reason these pages have gotten worse than in the past was because editors like Jayjg and Nishidani and the rest are topic-banned. At least when they made an argument it was intelligent enough that most of the "me too" people just stayed out of the way. Now, there are too many googlers trying to push an agenda to fill that void, not enough people have read anything that wasnt from one side or the others narrative. What we need is editors like you, and like Harlan, that know what they are talking about and can have a rational discussion. The last comment at the All-Palestine page was an example of what we need in the topic area, but everything else that you had written on that page in the past few days was not. So, if you would like some unsolicited advice, make a formal appeal on AE, and promise not to repeat the behavior that you came back with. I would support that appeal. Bye. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)</font></small> (edit conflict with the above block) | |||
| :Just dropping in, Nab -- hope it is ok to say hi here, and pick up on one observation you make, and let fly with a complete tangent. I would only add/respond by saying that the reason editors stayed away from many arguments in this area was because it was a waste of time, given the ganging up approach often seen. The people who value time, and have limits (as in demanding jobs), see their edits reverted, and re-reverted, and some say ... gosh, maybe I should just pick a non-controversial topic, like Creationism. I'm just saying.--] (]) 23:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==6 months block== | |||
| ] Please do not use talk pages {{#if:|such as ]}} for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are ]. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting ] and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See ] for more information. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-chat2 --> ] (]) 21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' for a period of '''6 months''' from editing{{#if:| for {{{reason}}}|}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:08, 16 April 2010 (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></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| This is in reaction to your evasion of your block and your arbitration topic ban as {{userlinks|Gderot}}, as documented at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for ], you may be '''blocked'''. <!-- {{uw-chat3}} --> ] (]) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Harlan, please don't use template warnings like weapons against users who aren't ] as you seem to be. It could be considered harassment and you may be blocked. Thank you. ] ('']'') 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::He has been asked by several editors to cite published sources for any analysis and to stop using the talk page as a general forum to discuss his speculative theories and opinions. Here are just a few examples He has put a number of NPOV tags on the article, but has not cited any published sources that represent the viewpoints he wants to add to the article, despite rather lengthy discussions. There is nothing wrong with the use of these templates under those circumstances. ] (]) 00:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Harlan, the history of the article indicates that you changed it to a controversial phrasing ignoring the consensus reached, and you are currently preventing any change by edit wars. I demonstrated how you misuse sources and brought very good evidence for that. The people who are damaged are Misplaced Pages users who don't get a genuine picture of the situation in the ME. ] (]) 13:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] State of Palestine == | |||
| You have made a number of tendentious edits to the State of Palestine article. Removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced editorial opinions is not acceptable behavior. | |||
| Other states and international organizations have recognized the Palestinian Authority as the government of the State of Palestine. The Forward article said that the Palestinian Authority has been working to expand the number of countries that recognize Palestine as a country and that "Costa Rica, a small Central American country, decided to open official ties with a “state of Palestine” through a document signed February 5 by Costa Rica’s ambassador to the United Nations and Riyad Mansour, the P.A.’s U.N. mission chief." That fact has been discussed on the article talk page. ] (]) 20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :There is nothing in the sources you provide that suggest the the PA and the SoP are equivalent. This is merely a personal interpretation of your. ] (]) 20:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == 3rr == | |||
| No consensus was established and you are certainly not an impartial person to make that judgment. You have already reverted 3 times, if you continue you may be blocked. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
Latest revision as of 08:24, 5 March 2023
April 2010
Notice to administrators: In a 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."
Sockpuppetry case
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. nableezy - 14:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 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."
AE comment
I realize I may not be welcome here, so feel free to delete this, but, if you dont mind, Id like to try to have a serious conversation. I sincerely hope you dont get blocked for that comment at AE (it was too funny to be blocked for) or the last comment at the All-Palestine talk page. But what you should do, if you wish to continue contributing here, is file an appeal of your sanction. The only reason I filed that request was because of the continuous insults, if you promise to not continue to do that I would support an appeal. When you want to, you can make intelligent and reasoned arguments, as you did in the last comment at the All-Palestine page. But when you first came back you did not do that, you just continuously insulted me and Harlan. Whatever you may think of me personally, I dont think the way to get these articles in shape is to "snipe" "pro-Israel" editors; I think we need "pro-Israel" editors, just the ones that are able to be reasonable and argue logically. You can do that. I know you are a smart person, you know three languages nearly as well as I know one, you are well-read and can make a coherent argument. So, if you can just be that smart person and not a complete dick I think you should be allowed to edit in the topic area. If you ask me the reason these pages have gotten worse than in the past was because editors like Jayjg and Nishidani and the rest are topic-banned. At least when they made an argument it was intelligent enough that most of the "me too" people just stayed out of the way. Now, there are too many googlers trying to push an agenda to fill that void, not enough people have read anything that wasnt from one side or the others narrative. What we need is editors like you, and like Harlan, that know what they are talking about and can have a rational discussion. The last comment at the All-Palestine page was an example of what we need in the topic area, but everything else that you had written on that page in the past few days was not. So, if you would like some unsolicited advice, make a formal appeal on AE, and promise not to repeat the behavior that you came back with. I would support that appeal. Bye. nableezy - 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict with the above block)
- Just dropping in, Nab -- hope it is ok to say hi here, and pick up on one observation you make, and let fly with a complete tangent. I would only add/respond by saying that the reason editors stayed away from many arguments in this area was because it was a waste of time, given the ganging up approach often seen. The people who value time, and have limits (as in demanding jobs), see their edits reverted, and re-reverted, and some say ... gosh, maybe I should just pick a non-controversial topic, like Creationism. I'm just saying.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
6 months block
Notice to administrators: In a 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."
This is in reaction to your evasion of your block and your arbitration topic ban as Gderot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as documented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork. Sandstein 11:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)