User talk:Matthead - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matthead (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 19 March 2010 (→Voluntary agreement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:21, 19 March 2010 by Matthead (talk | contribs) (→Voluntary agreement)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

User talk:Matthead/Archive2006
User talk:Matthead/Archive2007
User talk:Matthead/Archive2008
User talk:Matthead/Archive2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Did you know & Signpost


24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

24 December 2024

News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform"

Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything

Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject

In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case

From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?

Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality

Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies

Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

Traffic report: Was a long and dark December

Single page

Clay M. Greene

... that playwright Clay M. Greene (pictured) claimed he was "the first American white child born in San Francisco"?
... that a PhD student discovered a lost manuscript of Galen's Peri Alypias in 2005, in "one of the most spectacular finds ever of ancient literature"?
... that Kim Kitsuragi was praised as one of the best video game characters of 2019?
... that the Chinese Lingnan School faced condemnation during the Second Sino-Japanese War, even as it spread anti-Japanese messages?
... that in the wake of a hazing scandal, Western Kentucky University placed their swimming and diving programs on a five-year suspension?
... that Charles Fisk quit physics after unknowingly working for the Manhattan Project and became an organ builder?
... that after a 2008 tornado, Michael Chertoff likened Picher, Oklahoma, to a nuclear bomb site?
... that the producers of Doctor Who only wrote a queer romance into the programme's 2022 special episodes after viewers began shipping two characters?
... that the return ceremony of the skull of Adam Sapi Mkwawa's grandfather was "probably the biggest gathering ever to take place in Tanganyika"?

Medal table

Ich denke am vielversprechendsten wäre es vorerst nur die FRG/GER Fusion zu unterstützenden. Wenn ich mir die zurückliegenden Versuche anschaue hier einen Konsens zu erlangen, denke ich, dass hier die Logik am meisten überzeugt. Wäre schön wenn Du die Variante unterstützen könntest. Es sieht so aus als wenn hier langer Atem und konsequentes Argumentieren notwendig wäre. Cheers KarlMathiessen (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Sandstein#Your attention needed

I'd appreciate your comment on this. Sandstein 09:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 48 hours from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks first. Sandstein 22:58, 17 March 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."

This is a block per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions for your nationalist WP:BATTLEground conduct and harrassment at as discussed at . Please stop this. Sandstein 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an unacceptable statement by Sandstein. Shame on you. -- Matthead Discuß 00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What? Loosmark follows me around, provoking me repeatedly, and Sandstein blocks me? What a lop-sided act. No wonder admin Sandstein was recommended on the EEML mailing list, and Loosmark has chosen to complain on his talk, successfully. Somewhere, somebody is laughing his ass off.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: A reviewing administrator is not allowed to unblock unilaterally someone who an administrator blocked to enforce an ArbCom decision. Please see WP:AEBLOCK for instructions on how to properly appeal this block. NW (Talk) 23:17, 17 March 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.

Uh, what? Special rules? A blocking admin just has to claim he enforces an Arbcom decision, and the block must not be questioned by another admin? Beats me. -- Matthead Discuß 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There are indeed special rules, but that doesn't mean the block is unquestionable. Feel free to appeal using the {{sanction appeal}} template. NW (Talk) 23:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by Matthead

Moved to AN. NW (Talk) 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So that you know what is going on, the template you filled out is the start of a community discussion, which will take place on the Administrator's noticeboard. This discussion will examine the situation that led to this block, and determine if it should be lifted or (if it takes too long, which in this case is quite possible) noted in your block log as improper. If you have further comments to make in regards to this discussion, post them here, and they will be transferred over to AN by another editor. This procedure is required for Arbitration Enforcement blocks, as these are made under the authority of the Arbitration Committee, and cannot be unilaterally undone by any single administrator, only with the written consent of the Committee or a community consensus. Hersfold 03:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Appeal_by_Matthead, there is a trial in which I have no chance to defend myself, as I am still blocked, while Sandstein and Loosmark are allowed to participate. Very fair procedure. -- Matthead Discuß 13:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary agreement

Do you accept the terms outlined with respect to you here? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, I appreciate your effort with this proposal, and your input at the now closed ANI discussion. Actually, me staying away from the article on West Germany (and related ones) might have benefits for me, as the three latest blocks of me were related to it - or rather to others having rather odd ideas about it, and me getting punished for not swallowing them with a smile. As for the question: Ncmvocalist, may I ask you if you would accept to avoid editing your home country article and talk page in exchange for an unrelated foreigner doing the same? -- Matthead Discuß 22:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)