| Revision as of 12:38, 29 April 2015 editL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators27,362 edits →Arbitration clarification request closed: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:23, 27 May 2015 edit undoArzel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,013 edits Cleaning upNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Think I am probably done editing here. Have fun everyone. ] (]) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Hope you reconsider... == | |||
| I couldn't believe how quickly your case was handled. Whoosh!! Anyway, it just seems odd that we have to be so measured in our comments to opposing editors for fear they may misconstrue what we say as a personal attack while they are adding contentious material to a BLP. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 04:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] amended by motion == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has amended ] by a motion affecting you: | |||
| {{Ivmbox|1={{user|Arzel}} is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the ], broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator per the ]. Arzel may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.}} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 23:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your recent comment on WP:BLPN == | |||
| I think that refers to your recent comment on WP:BLPN. ] (]) 16:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| - | |||
| == Climate change controversy == | |||
| ] is part of American politics. Do not make any more comments supporting the political position of ] or I will ask for you to be blocked for violating your topic ban. ] (]) 20:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I would say it's pretty peripheral to politics in and of themselves. I know plenty of progressives that are firmly in the skeptic camp and vice versa.--] 20:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read the linked Misplaced Pages article, MONGO. If you know "skeptic camp" progressives or "progressive camp" skeptics, I'd be willing to bet that they're pretty far out on the political fringe in the anti-authority sort of swing back around to right-wing paranoia types. Lyndon LaRouche's acolytes come to mind. Have you been hanging out with them? ] (]) 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Calling me a climate change denier is a personal attack. Please refrain. ] (]) 21:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I didn't call you a climate change denier. I said you supported the political position of ]. I can show you diffs, if you'd like, but as long as you disengage, we can be done with this discussion. ] (]) 21:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You personally attacked by proxy. I have not commented on any article tagged with American politics, so report me if you want. ] (]) 21:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have no idea what you mean by "a personal attack by proxy". Is that like ]? In any case, on Misplaced Pages a topic ban whenever ''broadly construed'' is going to give you some headaches. ] admins are not very forgiving. Trust me. I speak from experience. ] (]) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I asked you on your talk page and am doing it again now...but also expecting an apology. You will retract your hideous personal attack against me as soon as you read this.--] 23:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}]. It sounds like you are sorely offended by my comments. Don't know what about them that offends you. If you'd like to explain what part of my contributions was a "hideous personal attack against ", I'd be happy to oblige. ] (]) 02:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You know exactly what the insult is. Retract it please.--] 03:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I honestly don't know what you think is insulting. ] (]) 11:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You associated MONGO with right-wing paranoids, thus another insult by proxy. Basically you are saying, "I am not saying you are a (denier, fringe wack-job, right-wing crazy person, etc.), but you do talk like one and appear to hang around them". Please stop making such insinuations, it does not foster a collaborative environment. ] (]) 13:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Aaah.... well, I wouldn't call Lyndon LaRouche acolytes right wing, although others might disagree because of the fabled contact of left-right way out in the wings. But, hell, I myself "hang around" LaRouchistas at Wikipediocracy which is the ''only'' place I've seen a left-winger spout climate denial nonsense. MONGO, however, seems to know of others, which is fine with me. I do not mean to imply by association or ] argumentation anything about how paranoid or not paranoid MONGO is. I have no evidence at all to that effect. I'm simply describing ''my'' experience. Is that clarification enough? ] (]) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I said before, I wouldn't be too worried about jps's idle threats. Instead of fostering an atmosphere of mutual-respect and cooperation, jps is relying on threats and intimidation. He is right about on thing though: ] admins are not very forgiving. If jps wants to risk a ] effect, let him. ] (]) 05:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looks like you're following me around, AQFK. Nice of you to stop by. ] (]) 11:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Arzel's on my watchlist. ] (]) 11:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Remember one of your friend == | |||
| I had just reported him. You might remember these few interactions, with the new account he socked with, he shown his admiration towards you. Next time please be alert! ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 14:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I figured he was a sock of someone, just didn't expect it to be him. Thanks! ] (]) 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == AE result: cautioned == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |2=Dialog-warning-orange.svg | |||
| |imagesize=50px | |||
| |1=Arzel, as a result of ], and the consensus of ArbCom at Arbitration Clarification and Amendment discussion, you are ''cautioned'' to avoid making edits in the area of your topic ban . Regarding the Watts edits, you are cautioned that editing in areas adjacent to the topic ban increases the chances of an inadvertent topic-ban breach, to respect the topic ban and to be careful to avoid editing in the area of the ban. <code>]]</code> 13:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Arbitration clarification request closed == | |||
| Hi Arzel, the ] arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 12:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC) | |||