→AE: new section |
Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) m →Your interaction ban: tweak |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
::::Please stop pushing your luck - don't discuss anyone you have an interaction ban with. It's that simple. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 23:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC) |
::::Please stop pushing your luck - don't discuss anyone you have an interaction ban with. It's that simple. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 23:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Im not doing that, I asked Tim if a certain action was a violation. The end. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
:::::Im not doing that, I asked Tim if a certain action was a violation. The end. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
Given Gilabrand's recent three-month block for an unrelated offense, I do not think that leaving that interaction ban in place will be productive or useful. Accordingly, your ban from interacting with or commenting on Gilabrand is lifted, effective immediately. (Note that I'll not hesitate to reimpose it if you try to game it somehow when Gilabrand returns to editing.) [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 08:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== AE == |
== AE == |
Revision as of 08:19, 20 December 2010
Template:Archive box collapsible
As you can see I'm in the middle of writing the article. Wait until I'm finished and then if you think it's not important enough, suggest it for deletion. That's common wiki courtesy. Nik Sage (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Common "wiki courtesy" is to not recreate articles that had already been deleted. In fact it is not "wiki courtesy" that says this but rather it is Wikipedia policy (G4). You have recreated an article deleted by consensus. If you wish to do that you should be going to DRV. Ill be tagging that as qualifying for CSD G5 shortly. nableezy - 18:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- How could I've known that the article was deleted? I've started to write an article about Lindsay while writing an article about UNRWA's chief John Ging. Ging talked about Lindsay's report in an interview. I've looked for this man and saw that there is no article about him, so I started writing one. I first heard about mr. Lindsay while reading the interview twenty minutes ago. As I was not in the deletion arguement before, you should've deduced that I don't know anything about it and refer me to it through my talk page. That's what I mean by courtesy. Nevertheless, I'm not as proficient as you in wiki procedures so I'll be much obliged if you'll explain what are "DRV. Ill" and "CSD G5". Nik Sage (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- You would know after I made my edit, as what you reverted, without comment, had a link to the AfD that resulted in the original page being deleted. DRV is "deletion review", it is the process used to contest the result of an AfD, whether it be keep or delete. You can read about it here. CSD is "categories for speedy deletion", it is a set of rules for what may be deleted without discussion. One of those rules is material that has already been deleted following a deletion discussion. You can read about is here. Finally, to the problem with reading an interview and making an article. Wikipedia has rules for what may be acceptable articles. Those rules include demonstrating that the subject is "notable". This requires citations to third party reliable sources. Your "article" is nothing but a collection of quotes from papers written by the subject, that is not a single citation to a reliable third party source is provided. That is not what Wikipedia articles, especially biographies of living people, should be made of. nableezy - 18:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks dude. Now I know more about wiki procedures. When I write on Wiki it is usually focused articles and I don't spend much time editing others - hence why I'm not so proficient in these rules. I'm still writing the article, and I'll try to do it by the wiki rules you presented. Give me a chance and then I'll be glad to hear any comments or criticizm. Nik Sage (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to do that you should do it in your userspace. You could for example make the article at User:Nik Sage/Lindsay. Once complete you could post to DRV and ask if people feel your draft should be moved in to article space. What you shouldnt do is revert the redirect, and you really shouldnt revert two different users who restore the redirect. nableezy - 19:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks dude. Now I know more about wiki procedures. When I write on Wiki it is usually focused articles and I don't spend much time editing others - hence why I'm not so proficient in these rules. I'm still writing the article, and I'll try to do it by the wiki rules you presented. Give me a chance and then I'll be glad to hear any comments or criticizm. Nik Sage (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- You would know after I made my edit, as what you reverted, without comment, had a link to the AfD that resulted in the original page being deleted. DRV is "deletion review", it is the process used to contest the result of an AfD, whether it be keep or delete. You can read about it here. CSD is "categories for speedy deletion", it is a set of rules for what may be deleted without discussion. One of those rules is material that has already been deleted following a deletion discussion. You can read about is here. Finally, to the problem with reading an interview and making an article. Wikipedia has rules for what may be acceptable articles. Those rules include demonstrating that the subject is "notable". This requires citations to third party reliable sources. Your "article" is nothing but a collection of quotes from papers written by the subject, that is not a single citation to a reliable third party source is provided. That is not what Wikipedia articles, especially biographies of living people, should be made of. nableezy - 18:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi dude. I've incorporated Lindsay's info inside UNRWA's page, thus expanding the James Lindsay section there. I think it makes UNRWA's page a little cumbersome, what do you think? What do you say about me creating a special page for the report, i.e. Lindsay report or something to that nature, or is it best to leave it as is? BTW, Thanks for all the wiki tips. Nik Sage (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I dont think that material needs to be given such in-depth coverage at the UNRWA page, it is a single person's opinion about a very large organization. If there are enough third-party sources covering the report an article on it would be fine, but you cant write an article on the report and use the report itself as the source. You need to get secondary sources actually covering the report. nableezy - 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- How could I've known that the article was deleted? I've started to write an article about Lindsay while writing an article about UNRWA's chief John Ging. Ging talked about Lindsay's report in an interview. I've looked for this man and saw that there is no article about him, so I started writing one. I first heard about mr. Lindsay while reading the interview twenty minutes ago. As I was not in the deletion arguement before, you should've deduced that I don't know anything about it and refer me to it through my talk page. That's what I mean by courtesy. Nevertheless, I'm not as proficient as you in wiki procedures so I'll be much obliged if you'll explain what are "DRV. Ill" and "CSD G5". Nik Sage (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nableezy. I've found third party sources. Lets continue the discussion in Lindsay talk page. BTW, I'll appreciate your inputs about this page List of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East employees. Nik Sage (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Im sorry, but as you may see below I cannot comment on this as it is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 03:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nableezy. I've found third party sources. Lets continue the discussion in Lindsay talk page. BTW, I'll appreciate your inputs about this page List of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East employees. Nik Sage (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Topic ban
Per this AE thread, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for four months. You may appeal this topic ban by the procedure provided for in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Tim, I would like a clarification as to whether or not this ban applies to filing SPI reports, and if it does then an explanation as to why it applies there. nableezy - 15:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Any particular sockmaster you have in mind? T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know, should it matter? You may have noticed I am familiar with more than a few. If I happen to see one, whichever one, am I banned from filing an SPI? nableezy - 03:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, you should not, since such an SPI case would presumably involve an article...within the area of conflict. If the case is obvious, I'd imagine there would be plenty of other editors who are capable of filing such cases. If no one files a report within a reasonable period of time, you may email me or another uninvolved administrator with the evidence for review. But for whatever reason, it seems that SPI cases related to topic areas under arbcom sanctions also tend to become battlegrounds, and I would not risk that. T. Canens (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever, your life. I think it incredibly stupid that you would include SPI in the ban. The only thing that results from that is that banned users are permitted to continue violating their bans. That SPI reports become "battlegrounds" is something that can attributed solely to one "side" here. Take a look at the SPI for Dajudem or some of the ones for NoCal. The users that are willing to defend sockpuppetry so long as their "side" is the one engaging in it (and it is shocking how much of the sockpuppetry comes from one "side" here) come from only one "side". You will not find users defending or protecting sockpuppets viewed as "pro-Palestinian". But as stopping serial sockpuppeteers such as NoCal100 or Dajudem is less important than restricting me from editing an SPI, Ill leave that alone as well. nableezy - 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, you should not, since such an SPI case would presumably involve an article...within the area of conflict. If the case is obvious, I'd imagine there would be plenty of other editors who are capable of filing such cases. If no one files a report within a reasonable period of time, you may email me or another uninvolved administrator with the evidence for review. But for whatever reason, it seems that SPI cases related to topic areas under arbcom sanctions also tend to become battlegrounds, and I would not risk that. T. Canens (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know, should it matter? You may have noticed I am familiar with more than a few. If I happen to see one, whichever one, am I banned from filing an SPI? nableezy - 03:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Any particular sockmaster you have in mind? T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Tim, while the Sock Slayer is away the socks may play? Not the best scenario? ← ZScarpia 14:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what the hell is going on around here. In any case, please email me any sock reports and I will be happy to post them to SPI. Tiamuttalk 23:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can always just email a CU directly, I just wanted to see how Tim would answer. Color me unsurprised. nableezy - 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- So much for transparency ... anyway, hope that you are well sadiqi, despite the unnecessary restraints. Tiamuttalk 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- All good sis, could use a break anyway. nableezy - 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm available for SPI report filing too. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- All good sis, could use a break anyway. nableezy - 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- So much for transparency ... anyway, hope that you are well sadiqi, despite the unnecessary restraints. Tiamuttalk 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can always just email a CU directly, I just wanted to see how Tim would answer. Color me unsurprised. nableezy - 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- @Tiamut you said "I don't understand what the hell is going on around here." Well it seems clear enough to me. This organisation has been infiltrated and off message editors are being systematically silenced. Prunesqualer (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I dont think that is true. You are understandably upset with how you were treated here, and Wikipedia does have a problem with how new editors are treated in contentious topics. I could give you some advice if you like, nableezy - 15:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- But please don't mention the I-P area while you're doing it! ← ZScarpia 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I dont think that is true. You are understandably upset with how you were treated here, and Wikipedia does have a problem with how new editors are treated in contentious topics. I could give you some advice if you like, nableezy - 15:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Recognition
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Because you continue to argue your case calmly and reasonably, refusing to compromise your beliefs or your commitment to the principles of Wikipedia, despite all of the pressures and hostility you encounter. RolandR (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much Roland, nableezy - 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)- On further examination, it appears the article edits occurred half an hour before you were informed of the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- What? All of the article edits took place before the topic ban was instituted and the conversation with Enigmaman was started before the topic ban was placed as well. Had he responded in a timely fashion, that conversation would have been done before as well. This block is wrong (it was made based on a misapprehension by the blocking admin) and should be immediately lifted, with apologies. Tiamuttalk 23:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what the fuck is this? Could you please post a single diff of me violating my topic ban? nableezy - 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- You've been unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- All right. nableezy - 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments?
Hi Nableezy. Do you have any comments on these? [1], [2]. Looks fishy to me; I suspect attempted entrapment; any ideas? Thanks. RolandR (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The second one is almost certainly a sock, maybe of the first and maybe NoCal come back to annoy you. You should file an SPI then ask for semi-protection. At AN3 I would ask how a "new" user knows within 4 hours of registering their account what the edit-warring noticeboard is. nableezy - 15:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am sure that the second is a sock of the first; and I thought of asking you about the first yesterday, as the behaviour seemed odd. But what grounds do you have for linking this to NoCal? There are other potential sockmasters too; do you see any common features? RolandR (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- NoCal has in the past come out of nowhere to push Tiamut into a 3RR vio on topics not in their usual pissing grounds, though he usually return to his favored topic area. See for example the early edits of Lovely day350 (talk · contribs). But I think you are probably right, that these two accounts are the same. nableezy - 15:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ill take care of the SPI. nableezy - 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, while looking into this I found an SPI to be completely unnecessary. See here. nableezy - 17:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was halfway through an SPI submission when Magog submitted a case; at the same time, you made yyour discovery, which I had missed (I was looking at the wrong log). That truly was incompetent sockpuppetry! Thank you for your help. Meanwhile, I am certain that this was a sock of a blocked user, so I hope a CU is approved and finds out who. RolandR (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, while looking into this I found an SPI to be completely unnecessary. See here. nableezy - 17:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am sure that the second is a sock of the first; and I thought of asking you about the first yesterday, as the behaviour seemed odd. But what grounds do you have for linking this to NoCal? There are other potential sockmasters too; do you see any common features? RolandR (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
See the CU result: "The name you are looking for is almost certainly User:Ledenierhomme". RolandR (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Your interaction ban
For the reasons I stated here, and subject to the warnings and reminders therein, your ban from interacting with Cptnono (talk · contribs) is lifted, effective immediately. Neither your two remaining interaction bans nor your topic ban is affected by this change. T. Canens (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Tim, could you please explain why I was given an interaction ban with Gilabrand? You wrote at the AE request about Shuki that Gilabrand (talk · contribs)'s comment here is also highly problematic ("Queen", "disgrace"). I propose that we also impose interaction bans between Jaakobou and Nableezy, and between Gilabrand and Nableezy, so that we may hopefully curb this battleground behavior. Why was I given a ban with an editor for what appears to be the sole reason that this editor made personal attacks directed at me? nableezy - 00:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and could you also say that if I were to write on the talk page of an admin that [Name of editor with who I have an interaction ban] was ignoring facts as they were being presented to him and that his response would be by repeating my complaint against him, only in harsher, and more personal tones would that be a violation of my interaction ban with that editor? nableezy - 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I distinctly remember answering your first question above - "One sided interaction bans often turn out to be disastrous, and in this particular case I don't want to take chances." As to your second question, that post you are referring to was arguably an exempt clarification attempt, but the follow up comment is unrelated to the ban and is therefore a violation, for which the user has been warned. You, however, are also violating the terms of the ban by referring to that post. The procedure specified there - a single report at AE followed by a single notification on user talk - is the only procedure available for you to report a violation. Don't do it again. T. Canens (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Now thats just funny. A direct personal attack results in not a block of the person who made it, but a two sided ban because one sided bans dont work. Never mind that nobody asked for such a ban or even a block. Next, my asking you about a comment made by an editor who cannot be named is a violation, but the comment in which I am explicitly referenced is an "exempt clarification attempt". Im not a punk, so I wont be reporting "interaction ban" violations. Ill just keep laughing about it. nableezy - 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- One last note, just in case you decide my referencing the reference to the post is a violation, please leave the autoblock off. Im at work and would rather not have the whole building banned (shared IP). nableezy - 21:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I distinctly remember answering your first question above - "One sided interaction bans often turn out to be disastrous, and in this particular case I don't want to take chances." As to your second question, that post you are referring to was arguably an exempt clarification attempt, but the follow up comment is unrelated to the ban and is therefore a violation, for which the user has been warned. You, however, are also violating the terms of the ban by referring to that post. The procedure specified there - a single report at AE followed by a single notification on user talk - is the only procedure available for you to report a violation. Don't do it again. T. Canens (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Given Gilabrand's recent three-month block for an unrelated offense, I do not think that leaving that interaction ban in place will be productive or useful. Accordingly, your ban from interacting with or commenting on Gilabrand is lifted, effective immediately. (Note that I'll not hesitate to reimpose it if you try to game it somehow when Gilabrand returns to editing.) T. Canens (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)