|
Hi MarcRey,
welcome back to Wikipedia!
As you may know, in general editors are expected to stick with one account (see
WP:Alternate account for details). While I don't see you used your accounts inappropriately, I would still ask that you please make it explicit on your user page which other accounts you used to edit with, for the sake of transparency. The {{
User previous account}} userbox is often used for that, but prose would be just as well.
Thanks & Cheers,
Amalthea 10:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually I don't know since I don't understand what exactly isn't neutral in the article. For example POV-statement template are inappropriate if the bias of the statement was not established. Because I don't see that any neutrality was properly put in question, I will remove the current tag. -- biblbroks (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I never in my wildest dreams wanted to refer to Srebrenica genocide. Please accept my most honest apologies. -- biblbroks (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
|
The
Arbitration Committee has permitted
administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the
Balkans. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the
purpose of Wikipedia, any expected
standards of behavior, or any
normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page. |
Danger High voltage! 07:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Danger
High voltage! 09:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
MarcRey ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have understood that what I did was inappropriate for this site, and confirm that I won't do it again. I was also unaware of the many policies on Wikipedia, of which one was " legal threat". I was however not given any chance to repent despite my many explanations and promises to reform, which were neglected. I was cynically blocked by administrator Danger who chose to show no consideration for my arguments in combination with his lack of theoretical understanding of the dispute, in effect labeling some valid arguments as "politically inflamed". In addition, he seems to find it reasonable to motivate his totalitarian actions due to editing I may have done 3 years ago, despite any such activity being ruled insignificant by other administrators concerned with supposed sock-puppetry. I am deeply disturbed by the lack of objectiveness by Danger and call for at least two additional, unrelated, administrators to review the block. I affirm that I have no current, or future, plans of legal actions but only to present the accredited sources which I am underway of collecting. Any previous rhetoric will not be repeated, as I have already assured. MarcRey ( talk) 12:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests discussing the actions of others instead of blockee's own actions will not be considered. Max Semenik ( talk) 13:50, 17 January 2012 (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.
Dear MarcRey,
i AM STILL ACTIVE on wikipedia but am sad to see you are blocked! How did that happen? Please let me know what I can do to help with serbo-croatian articles and sorry for my slow response?
Thanks! Bizutage ( talk) 11:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
MarcRey ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Alot of time has passed and I am obviously reformed and ready to edit Wikipedia according to community regulations
Decline reason:
A mere couple of months has passed ... normally something like WP:OFFER takes up to 6 months, and must include proof of positive editing on another Wikimedia project. However, every single unblock request MUST conform to the guide to appealing blocks. I see nothing in this current request that addresses every single reason for this block to begin with. I'm deeply concerned that in the past, you felt you could dictate the terms of your unblock ("two additional unrelated admins") and this would like to see some understanding of Wikipedia policy as you move forward with any future request. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (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.
But your "Balkan history" on your User Page - being a bit, shall we say, skewed (aka POV), does not indicate to the Wiki authorities that your claims of being reformed is valid. It appears to be a way to "vent" if/until your editing privs are restored, at which point you'd go off on your POV-agenda wiki-warring once again. You might consider either revising it to a more objective supported-by-majority-of-historians content, or removing it altogether. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 06:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi MarcRey,
welcome back to Wikipedia!
As you may know, in general editors are expected to stick with one account (see
WP:Alternate account for details). While I don't see you used your accounts inappropriately, I would still ask that you please make it explicit on your user page which other accounts you used to edit with, for the sake of transparency. The {{
User previous account}} userbox is often used for that, but prose would be just as well.
Thanks & Cheers,
Amalthea 10:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually I don't know since I don't understand what exactly isn't neutral in the article. For example POV-statement template are inappropriate if the bias of the statement was not established. Because I don't see that any neutrality was properly put in question, I will remove the current tag. -- biblbroks (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I never in my wildest dreams wanted to refer to Srebrenica genocide. Please accept my most honest apologies. -- biblbroks (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER ( TALK) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
|
|
The
Arbitration Committee has permitted
administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the
Balkans. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the
purpose of Wikipedia, any expected
standards of behavior, or any
normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page. |
Danger High voltage! 07:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Danger
High voltage! 09:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)MarcRey ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have understood that what I did was inappropriate for this site, and confirm that I won't do it again. I was also unaware of the many policies on Wikipedia, of which one was " legal threat". I was however not given any chance to repent despite my many explanations and promises to reform, which were neglected. I was cynically blocked by administrator Danger who chose to show no consideration for my arguments in combination with his lack of theoretical understanding of the dispute, in effect labeling some valid arguments as "politically inflamed". In addition, he seems to find it reasonable to motivate his totalitarian actions due to editing I may have done 3 years ago, despite any such activity being ruled insignificant by other administrators concerned with supposed sock-puppetry. I am deeply disturbed by the lack of objectiveness by Danger and call for at least two additional, unrelated, administrators to review the block. I affirm that I have no current, or future, plans of legal actions but only to present the accredited sources which I am underway of collecting. Any previous rhetoric will not be repeated, as I have already assured. MarcRey ( talk) 12:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests discussing the actions of others instead of blockee's own actions will not be considered. Max Semenik ( talk) 13:50, 17 January 2012 (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.
Dear MarcRey,
i AM STILL ACTIVE on wikipedia but am sad to see you are blocked! How did that happen? Please let me know what I can do to help with serbo-croatian articles and sorry for my slow response?
Thanks! Bizutage ( talk) 11:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
MarcRey ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Alot of time has passed and I am obviously reformed and ready to edit Wikipedia according to community regulations
Decline reason:
A mere couple of months has passed ... normally something like WP:OFFER takes up to 6 months, and must include proof of positive editing on another Wikimedia project. However, every single unblock request MUST conform to the guide to appealing blocks. I see nothing in this current request that addresses every single reason for this block to begin with. I'm deeply concerned that in the past, you felt you could dictate the terms of your unblock ("two additional unrelated admins") and this would like to see some understanding of Wikipedia policy as you move forward with any future request. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (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.
But your "Balkan history" on your User Page - being a bit, shall we say, skewed (aka POV), does not indicate to the Wiki authorities that your claims of being reformed is valid. It appears to be a way to "vent" if/until your editing privs are restored, at which point you'd go off on your POV-agenda wiki-warring once again. You might consider either revising it to a more objective supported-by-majority-of-historians content, or removing it altogether. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 06:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)