No edit summary |
PhilKnight (talk | contribs) restore block notice |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Welcome == |
|||
Due to a block, I am currently unable to archive this page. Older versions can be accessed in "view history". |
|||
'''Welcome!''' |
|||
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|your contributions]]{{#if:|, especially what you did for [[:{{{art}}}]]}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]] and [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to develop articles]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Your first article|How to create your first article]] (using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0|Article Wizard]] if you wish) |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] |
|||
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign]] your messages on [[Wikipedia:talk page|discussion page]]s using four [[tilde]]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], ask me on {{#if:Nableezy|[[user talk:Nableezy|my talk page]]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> |
|||
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small> |
|||
== October 2010 == |
|||
=== Welcome to the fascinating world of Wikipedia Editing === |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not add commentary or your own [[Wikipedia:No original research|personal analysis]] to Wikipedia articles, as you did to [[Gaza War]]. Doing so violates Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npov2 --> ''There is also increased scrutiny on the article since it is in a turbulent area.'' [[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 06:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:<b>My beginners guide to surviving – Wiki Editing</b> |
|||
:Yeah the template was the wrong one. Probably should have spelled it out. It is information that needs detail to explain or else it unbalances it. Things that would be neded include if fighters took refuge in such facilities, if those facilities were actually targeted, and so on. It would more than likely bee too much information in the lead. If you want it in you will need to discuss it on the talk page. Yes, hopefully we do not need to seek arbitration. If you do not use the talk page and insert information without consensus we will go that route.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
At first, as an inexperienced editor, you may feel a little intimidated by the sheer mass of information involved in contributing to Wiki eg |
|||
::I'm not the one that needs convincing. You need to seek consensus on the talk page. I have started a section there. It details the concern with the edit and your violation of 1/rr.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*Policy statements, rules, regulations, and good conduct guides etc |
|||
Dont let this user bully you. You have made one revert, so has Cptnono. Cptnono needs consensus as much as you do. You have not "violated 1RR", though if you or Cptnono make one more you will have violated it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 19:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|||
*Editing technicalities (Wiki procedures for formatting text or adding citations etc) |
|||
==October 2010== |
|||
*Abbreviations and jargon eg "WP:WORDS", "MoS" "NPOV" etc |
|||
A discussion concerning your violation of 1R has been opened here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=391715493]--[[User:Jiujitsuguy|Jiujitsuguy]] ([[User talk:Jiujitsuguy|talk]]) 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)] |
|||
That said, generally speaking, Wikipedia dose it's best to present a welcoming, helpful, and non threatening environment for the beginner. By reading a few help pages, and with a little perseverance, most new editors should be able to pick up the skills and understanding, necessary to make valid contributions, within only a short time. Most will find their Wiki experience to be enlightening and rewarding. |
|||
⚫ | |||
A little over 24 hrs later: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Prunesqualer]][[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 23:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<b>However Wikipedia dose have a less cuddly side.</b> |
|||
::I have some faith in the WP administration. They can access what has been said and done. I think they will see right through attempts to bully and intimidate. [[User:Prunesqualer|Prunesqualer]] ([[User talk:Prunesqualer#top|talk]]) 23:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::''You'' mentioned arbitration first. You made a proposal. It was rejected. You propsed a compromise. It was rejected. You did not ''need'' to make the edit. You could have waited and you should have. I also see that you are over reverting on a related article. To be honest, I would have taken it to AE if I would have realized.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Your accusations of 1/rr are baseless. It is my honest opinion that, the current Wikipedia [[Gaza War]] article is biased. My recent encounters with you suggest that, you are at least partly responsible for the bias in that article. Biased articles reflect badly on Wikipedia. In my opinion, it is you who should be under scrutiny by the WP administration. |
|||
⚫ | |||
== Notification == |
|||
If you choose to edit articles which engage controversial, or contentious issues, you are likely to face a series of obstacles and bruising encounters. Most or my editing experiences have been in the field of "the Middle East conflict" (I happen to find that area fascinating). Articles concerning this issue, most certainly do come under the heading of "controversial, or contentious" (it is surly a contender for, the most fought over issue, on the whole of Wiki). My experience in contributing to these articles leads me to give the following advise about editing controversial articles - unless you are exceptionally thick skinned, have the mind of a lawyer, and the patience of a saint then - <b> DON'T DO IT </b> |
|||
As a result of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|an arbitration case]], the [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Area of conflict|Palestinian-Israeli conflict]], broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|editing restrictions]], described [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions|here]] and below. |
|||
Here are some of the reasons why you should steer clear of controversial articles; |
|||
*Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. |
|||
The root of the problem is that; some editors working on these articles have strong opinions and agendas. In extreme cases these editors will have no regard for normal standards of fairness or balance in the article, and will feel no compunction about pushing an article, well to one side of what most informed neutrals would consider balanced. Their guiding principle is not "what is fair and balanced" but rather "what can I get away with". They use a verity of tactics in order to further their cause. Some may be used by determined editors working alone, but the most effective strategies require a significant number of editors working in concert. This, I suspect, has been achieved, in the case of the pro-Israel cause, by large scale recruitment and training programs (see the "Wikipedia subverted?" section on this page for more info on this). The basic objective of agenda driven editors is <b>to maximise control over relevant article content.</b>. This is achieved by; |
|||
*The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. |
|||
* Persistent and maximal insertion of edits favourable to the cause (this may be seen as legitimate but in cases where cabals of enlisted and trained editors are involved this behaviour, is likely to, seriously unbalance an article). |
|||
*Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. |
|||
* Persistent and maximal deletion/reversion of edits unfavourable to "the cause". Even when a contribution has been- scrupulously researched: properly cited: carefully worded: thoughtfully considered in terms of it's relevance, and overall effect on the balance of the article- there is still a very good chance that these people will revert it (an excuse can always be invented). |
|||
*Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently [[WP:AE]]), or the Committee. |
|||
* Encouragement, facilitation and co-ordination with "on side" editors, whilst deterring "off message" contributors. Examples include: The insistence on consensus prior to contributing for "off message" editors, but not for "on side" ones. Where consensus is sought, on the relevant talk page then "off message" editors are often met with interminable, obtuse and irrelevant argument, or Wiki lawyering. Prominent complaints and threats of sanction are directed at "off message" editors for even minor infringements, but mild remonstrance and advice is given to "on message" transgressors. |
|||
* Where possible neutralising (eg getting blocked) editors who persist in making "off message" edits. Whether external pressure groups have succeeded in recruiting so-called 'stealth admins'" is a moot point, but even without such "high up" it is certainly true that a determined, experienced and potentially trained editor (see the "Wikipedia subverted?") will know how to play the system, far more effectively than an inexperienced one. |
|||
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. |
|||
In short, if you edit on controversial articles for long enough you can expect to be reverted, run around the houses, bullied, sneered at and, if you aren’t extremely careful eventually sanctioned. No mercy will be shown. If you want to feel like the protagonist from a Franz Kafka novel then go ahead. Otherwise I repeat <b> DON'T DO IT. </b> |
|||
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary. |
|||
Please Note: these are personal observations and in no way representative of official Wikipedia policy. |
|||
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications|here]]. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikipedia subverted? == |
|||
== Blocked and article-banned == |
|||
There has been some discussion over the years about the potential for Wikipedia to be at least partially subverted by organised special interest groups. The case of CAMRA (a group whose aim is to serve Israeli interests in the field of information dissemination ie propaganda) springs immediately to mind. They appear to have been engaged in the large scale recruitment and training of persons sympathetic to Israel, for the purpose of biasing relevant Wiki articles ie showing Israel and it's policies in a good light, and showing Israel's perceived enemies in a bad light. This particular scheme was eventually exposed thanks to an infiltrator who leaked incriminating e-mails to the Wiki administration. The following is part of Wiki's written response; |
|||
Hello Prunesqualer. |
|||
"We believe that the group posed a significant long-term threat to the integrity of Wikipedia's Middle Eastern articles. We note that CAMERA reportedly has 55,000 members and that its mailing list had already been used to recruit "Isra-pedia" members. There is no reason to believe that the group would not have grown in numbers and experience over time, particularly if CAMERA had continued to use its mailing list to solicit recruits. However, we regard the group's apparent intention to recruit so-called "stealth admins" as naïve and unlikely to have succeeded." |
|||
You have previously been made aware that the article {{la|Gaza War}} is subject to discretionary sanctions and that editors of that page are restricted to one revert per 24 hours. |
|||
I wonder if that last sentence about the "intention to recruit so-called 'stealth admins'" being "unlikely to have succeeded." Is just a tad complacent. Surly such a admin infiltration/subversion operation would be hard to detect provided that the operatives where well trained to avoid suspicions. If such a scheme is already in operation, then I think it would be reasonable to make the following prediction; editors who have frequently made contributions critical of Israel will have been <b>proportionatly</b> - more frequently, and more severely sanctioned than, those who make pro-Israeli contributions. I suspect that performing the large scale statistical study, necessary to test such a prediction, would be very arduous. It might make a very interesting post grad project for someone though? [[User:Prunesqualer|Prunesqualer]] ([[User talk:Prunesqualer#top|talk]]) 21:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
You have repeatedly inserted material that you knew to be contested and without consensus. You have done so more often than the one-revert restriction allows. |
|||
I offer the following Guardian article as further food for thought Re- the possibility of Wiki neutrality being systematically undermined; |
|||
Because of this, I am blocking you from editing for 24 hours. Additionally, you are banned from making any edits to {{la|Gaza War}} for a period of 14 days. The block and article ban will run concurrently where their duration overlaps. |
|||
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups |
|||
The article-ban does not restrict you from editing the talk page of the article and, in fact, when your block expires you are encouraged to do so. |
|||
⚫ | |||
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Balance icon.svg|40px|left]] To enforce an [[WP:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision, you have been temporarily [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks]] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=349940199#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement 2010 decision]</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 [[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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|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."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
|||
== The Vultures move in == |
|||
⚫ | |||
Yesterday I was banned from contributing to articles concerned with the Middle East conflict. My downfall was the [[Gaza War]] article. I worked hard to influence the intro section (against determined resistance from certain quarters), because I sincerely felt it to give an incomplete and biased impression of that piece of history. I allowed myself to become too emotionally involved and made some procedural errors. Other parties where not slow to capitalise on my mistakes. One day later, and I note that nearly all my work is undone, and that editors on the talk page are advertising an open season on reverting my edits. |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=It is claimed that, in Wiki's [[Gaza War]] article, I "have repeatedly inserted material that [I] knew to be contested and without consensus. [I] have done so more often than the one-revert restriction allows." The following is a complete list of edits I have made, this year, to Wiki's Gaza War article (oldest first); *23:27, 18 October 2010 (I added four items to an existing list of buildings/facilities "attacked" by the IDF) *23:31, 18 October 2010 (Minor edit, I removed a surplus full stop) *00:05, 19 October 2010 (Substituted non functional web link/citation. <b>No material change was made to the article</b>). *19:03, 19 October 2010 (My first reversion.) *22:57, 20 October 2010 (on the talk page, I had proposed what I consider a reasonable rewording. However attempts to get consensus on the talk page seemed to be going nowhere. I went ahead and contributed the <b>significantly</b> reworded version. Please note; this was not a reversion but a <b>significantly</b> different contribution). *01:49, 21 October 2010 (my second [and last to date] reversion to the reworded version). (Please check out the justifications given for my two reversions, and one rewrite on the [[Gaza War]] talk page.) Was this blocking really in keeping with Wiki's stated guidelines ie "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment" ? |decline=First, going ahead and making the edit even though you had failed to achieve consensus was problematic. Reverting to your preferred version was the nail in the coffin. Secondly, you have been advised that you may not request unblock in this manner: read the information on appealing ArbComm Enforcement blocks as you were directed above. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 12:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
For instance; |
|||
* Under the section "Obama and congress in the lead" we have "Procedural note: Edits by Prunesqualer can be reverted since he was banned. This was one of them…" |
|||
* Under the section "Citation overkill" we have "Procedural note: Edits by Prunesqualer can be reverted since he was banned. A couple of them culminated in this edit…" |
|||
* And under a newly created section titled "Edits of banned user" we have "I have reverted this edit of banned editor Prunesqualer who was under an article ban when he made the edit". This from an editor who had previously offered (but not acted on the offer) to perform the very edit he was now reverting. |
|||
Strangely enough there was no extra comment under the existing section titled (by another editor) "Prunesqualer's edit". |
|||
== Notice == |
|||
I think this gives a very revealing insight into what conditions prevail re. editing on the [[Gaza War]] article. |
|||
I have requested arbitration enforcement with regard to your article ban. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=393477573&oldid=393473520]. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 19:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Balance icon.svg|40px|left]] To enforce an [[WP:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''21 days''' for '''violating your article ban on [[Gaza War]]. Moreover, under the authority of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]], I am hereby extending and expanding your topic ban to cover every article reasonably related to Israeli-Palestianian conflict, such ban is of indefinite duration.'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks]] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=349940199#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement 2010 decision]</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 [[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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|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."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ |
Revision as of 23:04, 29 October 2010
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Prunesqualer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
nableezy - 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
October 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gaza War. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. There is also increased scrutiny on the article since it is in a turbulent area. Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah the template was the wrong one. Probably should have spelled it out. It is information that needs detail to explain or else it unbalances it. Things that would be neded include if fighters took refuge in such facilities, if those facilities were actually targeted, and so on. It would more than likely bee too much information in the lead. If you want it in you will need to discuss it on the talk page. Yes, hopefully we do not need to seek arbitration. If you do not use the talk page and insert information without consensus we will go that route.Cptnono (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Dont let this user bully you. You have made one revert, so has Cptnono. Cptnono needs consensus as much as you do. You have not "violated 1RR", though if you or Cptnono make one more you will have violated it. nableezy - 19:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
October 2010
A discussion concerning your violation of 1R has been opened here[1]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)]
- Blanking this was actually acceptable per WP:BLANKING.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
A little over 24 hrs later: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PrunesqualerCptnono (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have some faith in the WP administration. They can access what has been said and done. I think they will see right through attempts to bully and intimidate. Prunesqualer (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- You mentioned arbitration first. You made a proposal. It was rejected. You propsed a compromise. It was rejected. You did not need to make the edit. You could have waited and you should have. I also see that you are over reverting on a related article. To be honest, I would have taken it to AE if I would have realized.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your accusations of 1/rr are baseless. It is my honest opinion that, the current Wikipedia Gaza War article is biased. My recent encounters with you suggest that, you are at least partly responsible for the bias in that article. Biased articles reflect badly on Wikipedia. In my opinion, it is you who should be under scrutiny by the WP administration.
- You mentioned arbitration first. You made a proposal. It was rejected. You propsed a compromise. It was rejected. You did not need to make the edit. You could have waited and you should have. I also see that you are over reverting on a related article. To be honest, I would have taken it to AE if I would have realized.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have some faith in the WP administration. They can access what has been said and done. I think they will see right through attempts to bully and intimidate. Prunesqualer (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Notification
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. CIreland (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocked and article-banned
Hello Prunesqualer.
You have previously been made aware that the article Gaza War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is subject to discretionary sanctions and that editors of that page are restricted to one revert per 24 hours.
You have repeatedly inserted material that you knew to be contested and without consensus. You have done so more often than the one-revert restriction allows.
Because of this, I am blocking you from editing for 24 hours. Additionally, you are banned from making any edits to Gaza War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a period of 14 days. The block and article ban will run concurrently where their duration overlaps.
The article-ban does not restrict you from editing the talk page of the article and, in fact, when your block expires you are encouraged to do so.
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."
CIreland (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Prunesqualer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is claimed that, in Wiki's Gaza War article, I "have repeatedly inserted material that [I] knew to be contested and without consensus. [I] have done so more often than the one-revert restriction allows." The following is a complete list of edits I have made, this year, to Wiki's Gaza War article (oldest first); *23:27, 18 October 2010 (I added four items to an existing list of buildings/facilities "attacked" by the IDF) *23:31, 18 October 2010 (Minor edit, I removed a surplus full stop) *00:05, 19 October 2010 (Substituted non functional web link/citation. No material change was made to the article). *19:03, 19 October 2010 (My first reversion.) *22:57, 20 October 2010 (on the talk page, I had proposed what I consider a reasonable rewording. However attempts to get consensus on the talk page seemed to be going nowhere. I went ahead and contributed the significantly reworded version. Please note; this was not a reversion but a significantly different contribution). *01:49, 21 October 2010 (my second [and last to date] reversion to the reworded version). (Please check out the justifications given for my two reversions, and one rewrite on the Gaza War talk page.) Was this blocking really in keeping with Wiki's stated guidelines ie "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment" ?
Decline reason:
First, going ahead and making the edit even though you had failed to achieve consensus was problematic. Reverting to your preferred version was the nail in the coffin. Secondly, you have been advised that you may not request unblock in this manner: read the information on appealing ArbComm Enforcement blocks as you were directed above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 21 October 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.
Notice
I have requested arbitration enforcement with regard to your article ban. See [2]. CIreland (talk) 19:16, 28 October 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."