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."
Sockpuppetry case
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. nableezy - 14:16, 14 April 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."
I realize I may not be welcome here, so feel free to delete this, but, if you dont mind, Id like to try to have a serious conversation. I sincerely hope you dont get blocked for that comment at AE (it was too funny to be blocked for) or the last comment at the All-Palestine talk page. But what you should do, if you wish to continue contributing here, is file an appeal of your sanction. The only reason I filed that request was because of the continuous insults, if you promise to not continue to do that I would support an appeal. When you want to, you can make intelligent and reasoned arguments, as you did in the last comment at the All-Palestine page. But when you first came back you did not do that, you just continuously insulted me and Harlan. Whatever you may think of me personally, I dont think the way to get these articles in shape is to "snipe" "pro-Israel" editors; I think we need "pro-Israel" editors, just the ones that are able to be reasonable and argue logically. You can do that. I know you are a smart person, you know three languages nearly as well as I know one, you are well-read and can make a coherent argument. So, if you can just be that smart person and not a complete dick I think you should be allowed to edit in the topic area. If you ask me the reason these pages have gotten worse than in the past was because editors like Jayjg and Nishidani and the rest are topic-banned. At least when they made an argument it was intelligent enough that most of the "me too" people just stayed out of the way. Now, there are too many googlers trying to push an agenda to fill that void, not enough people have read anything that wasnt from one side or the others narrative. What we need is editors like you, and like Harlan, that know what they are talking about and can have a rational discussion. The last comment at the All-Palestine page was an example of what we need in the topic area, but everything else that you had written on that page in the past few days was not. So, if you would like some unsolicited advice, make a formal appeal on AE, and promise not to repeat the behavior that you came back with. I would support that appeal. Bye. nableezy - 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict with the above block)
- Just dropping in, Nab -- hope it is ok to say hi here, and pick up on one observation you make, and let fly with a complete tangent. I would only add/respond by saying that the reason editors stayed away from many arguments in this area was because it was a waste of time, given the ganging up approach often seen. The people who value time, and have limits (as in demanding jobs), see their edits reverted, and re-reverted, and some say ... gosh, maybe I should just pick a non-controversial topic, like Creationism. I'm just saying.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:06, 14 April 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 in reaction to your evasion of your block and your arbitration topic ban as Gderot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork. Sandstein 11:09, 16 April 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."
Sockpuppetry case
|
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. nableezy - 14:16, 14 April 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."
I realize I may not be welcome here, so feel free to delete this, but, if you dont mind, Id like to try to have a serious conversation. I sincerely hope you dont get blocked for that comment at AE (it was too funny to be blocked for) or the last comment at the All-Palestine talk page. But what you should do, if you wish to continue contributing here, is file an appeal of your sanction. The only reason I filed that request was because of the continuous insults, if you promise to not continue to do that I would support an appeal. When you want to, you can make intelligent and reasoned arguments, as you did in the last comment at the All-Palestine page. But when you first came back you did not do that, you just continuously insulted me and Harlan. Whatever you may think of me personally, I dont think the way to get these articles in shape is to "snipe" "pro-Israel" editors; I think we need "pro-Israel" editors, just the ones that are able to be reasonable and argue logically. You can do that. I know you are a smart person, you know three languages nearly as well as I know one, you are well-read and can make a coherent argument. So, if you can just be that smart person and not a complete dick I think you should be allowed to edit in the topic area. If you ask me the reason these pages have gotten worse than in the past was because editors like Jayjg and Nishidani and the rest are topic-banned. At least when they made an argument it was intelligent enough that most of the "me too" people just stayed out of the way. Now, there are too many googlers trying to push an agenda to fill that void, not enough people have read anything that wasnt from one side or the others narrative. What we need is editors like you, and like Harlan, that know what they are talking about and can have a rational discussion. The last comment at the All-Palestine page was an example of what we need in the topic area, but everything else that you had written on that page in the past few days was not. So, if you would like some unsolicited advice, make a formal appeal on AE, and promise not to repeat the behavior that you came back with. I would support that appeal. Bye. nableezy - 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict with the above block)
- Just dropping in, Nab -- hope it is ok to say hi here, and pick up on one observation you make, and let fly with a complete tangent. I would only add/respond by saying that the reason editors stayed away from many arguments in this area was because it was a waste of time, given the ganging up approach often seen. The people who value time, and have limits (as in demanding jobs), see their edits reverted, and re-reverted, and some say ... gosh, maybe I should just pick a non-controversial topic, like Creationism. I'm just saying.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:06, 14 April 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 in reaction to your evasion of your block and your arbitration topic ban as Gderot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork. Sandstein 11:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)