Ivanvector (talk | contribs) You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits. (TW) |
→Cassandra's advice: new section |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== April 2019 == |
== April 2019 == |
||
<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px">[[File:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision and for inappropriate use of your talk page in violation of your topic ban, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) then contact the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] through [[Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee]] (or, if your email access is revoked, to {{Nospam|arbcom-en|wikimedia.org}}). You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/Ivanvector|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators]] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px">[[File:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision and for inappropriate use of your talk page in violation of your topic ban, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) then contact the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] through [[Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee]] (or, if your email access is revoked, to {{Nospam|arbcom-en|wikimedia.org}}). You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/Ivanvector|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators]] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
||
== [[Cassandra]]'s advice == |
|||
On 8 December 2018 I gave KidAd some very good advice. I repeated my advice on 26 January 2019. |
|||
For the third time, KidAd ignored my advice and now he is blocked until 25 July. |
|||
He simply will not stop editing pages relating to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. |
|||
This will be the last time I post this advice. The next time I will recommend an indefinite block. |
|||
Here is my advice: |
|||
KidAd, you already know how to avoid violating your topic ban, The problem is that you are unwilling to do so. |
|||
Read the following very carefully. I advise printing it out, putting it on the wall next to your computer, and reading it every time you are tempted to read anything on Wikipedia. You might want to refrain from deleting my advice this time, but of course that is your decision to make -- it's your talk page. |
|||
Here is the advice that would have prevented the current block and all previous blocks: |
|||
Once your current block expires, stay completely away from post-1932 American politics until your topic ban is lifted. |
|||
No pages about post-1932 American politicians. |
|||
No pages about wives or children of post-1932 American politicians. |
|||
No pages about journalists who primarily write about post-1932 American politics. |
|||
No pages about post-1932 American political issues. |
|||
No edits on non-politics pages that in any way touch on post-1932 American politics. |
|||
Not on articles. |
|||
Not on talk pages. |
|||
Not on noticeboards. |
|||
Not on your own user page or talk page (you can discuss your block or topic ban on your talk page, but be careful not to stray into discussing post-1932 American politics) |
|||
Make no edits that will later end up with you saying "I thought it was OK because..." There is no reason that is valid excuse for violating your topic ban. |
|||
No exceptions. |
|||
No excuses. |
|||
If you have any doubt, stay away. If you really think that your edit is OK for whatever reason, it isn't. |
|||
Don't be that person who stands right on the line he isn't allowed to cross with his toes across the line. Stay a mile away from the line you cannot cross. '''Make it so that if anyone accuses you of violating your topic ban the unanimous opinion will be that they are crazy.''' |
|||
In fact, I advise you to stop ''reading'' any pages that in any way touch on post-1932 American politics. That way you won't be tempted to edit them. |
|||
You know what you did wrong. Don't do it again. |
|||
Free clue: "I didn't do anything wrong". "What I did was justified" "I really thought that the topic ban didn't cover this" and "The other guy did bad things" are all common excuses for violating a topic ban that don't work. |
|||
When I first started editing Wikipedia 12 years ago, my behavior was far worse than anything you have done. When I ran into opposition, I fought, and I really thought that I was right and they were wrong. Then an experienced editor took the time to calmly explain to me that if I learned the rules and followed them I could make the world a better place by building a better encyclopedia. |
|||
I still hope that one day you will be telling a similar story, but after repeatedly violating your topic ban, I have little hope in your case. I still would very much like you to change your behavior and become a productive editor. It's just that I no longer believe that you will, and in fact I no longer believe anything you write. Please, please, PLEASE prove me wrong. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:16, 23 April 2019
April 2019
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Cassandra's advice
On 8 December 2018 I gave KidAd some very good advice. I repeated my advice on 26 January 2019.
For the third time, KidAd ignored my advice and now he is blocked until 25 July.
He simply will not stop editing pages relating to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed.
This will be the last time I post this advice. The next time I will recommend an indefinite block.
Here is my advice:
KidAd, you already know how to avoid violating your topic ban, The problem is that you are unwilling to do so.
Read the following very carefully. I advise printing it out, putting it on the wall next to your computer, and reading it every time you are tempted to read anything on Wikipedia. You might want to refrain from deleting my advice this time, but of course that is your decision to make -- it's your talk page.
Here is the advice that would have prevented the current block and all previous blocks:
Once your current block expires, stay completely away from post-1932 American politics until your topic ban is lifted.
No pages about post-1932 American politicians.
No pages about wives or children of post-1932 American politicians.
No pages about journalists who primarily write about post-1932 American politics.
No pages about post-1932 American political issues.
No edits on non-politics pages that in any way touch on post-1932 American politics.
Not on articles.
Not on talk pages.
Not on noticeboards.
Not on your own user page or talk page (you can discuss your block or topic ban on your talk page, but be careful not to stray into discussing post-1932 American politics)
Make no edits that will later end up with you saying "I thought it was OK because..." There is no reason that is valid excuse for violating your topic ban.
No exceptions.
No excuses.
If you have any doubt, stay away. If you really think that your edit is OK for whatever reason, it isn't.
Don't be that person who stands right on the line he isn't allowed to cross with his toes across the line. Stay a mile away from the line you cannot cross. Make it so that if anyone accuses you of violating your topic ban the unanimous opinion will be that they are crazy.
In fact, I advise you to stop reading any pages that in any way touch on post-1932 American politics. That way you won't be tempted to edit them.
You know what you did wrong. Don't do it again.
Free clue: "I didn't do anything wrong". "What I did was justified" "I really thought that the topic ban didn't cover this" and "The other guy did bad things" are all common excuses for violating a topic ban that don't work.
When I first started editing Wikipedia 12 years ago, my behavior was far worse than anything you have done. When I ran into opposition, I fought, and I really thought that I was right and they were wrong. Then an experienced editor took the time to calmly explain to me that if I learned the rules and followed them I could make the world a better place by building a better encyclopedia.
I still hope that one day you will be telling a similar story, but after repeatedly violating your topic ban, I have little hope in your case. I still would very much like you to change your behavior and become a productive editor. It's just that I no longer believe that you will, and in fact I no longer believe anything you write. Please, please, PLEASE prove me wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)