Nassiriya

just as an FYI:

1RR

What you just did is exactly what I was hoping to prevent by providing you with the above notice, which says you can't revert more than once per 24 hours on that article. You have now reverted twice (by adding the word "Palestinian" which was earlier removed, first by No More Mister Nice guy and then by me. I strongly suggest you undo that last edit, to avoid being reported and in all likelihood blocked from editing for that vioaltion. Then, once you've undone your changes, you should go to the talk page where there is an active discussion regarding that word as a descriptor for the city, and participate in that discussion. Jeff Song (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 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."

Qana airstrike

Please be very careful of accusing other users of vandalism as you did in your edit summaries for Qana airstrike. On wikipedia it has very specific meaning involving deliberate damage to the encyclopedia, and using it other ways can count as a personal attack. You can read the details here. Also, when you open a new case at WP:ANI, you are required to notify the user about whom you are complaining, which you have not done. JanetteDoe (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nassiriya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is not fair! I undid VANDALISM, and it was vandalism done by an IP address. The IP was VANDALISING the article, and I am punished!!!! The warning I was given says "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". Then why I am penalised if the reverts should be "without penalty"? This is NOT FAIR.

Decline reason:

You've been warned above that vandalism has a very narrrow definition. What you undid wasn't simple vandalism and thus your edit wasn't 1RR exempt. Please review WP:VAND for more detailed description of what is vandalism and what isn't. Max Semenik (talk) 16:35, 24 February 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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Nassiriya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The 1RR says that all reverts against IP editors are exempt. It says so right here at the top of this page. How can anybody say the reverts are NOT EXEMPT??? The rule says "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". All of my reverts were of "edits by anonymous IP editors". So it should be exempt. Why are you making up rules? Is that how things are done here? I ask for help because an IP keeps removing the name of a massacre and I get punished? How is this fair? The rules themselves say that my edits are exempt from the 1RR. And now you say it is not? Who is right? The rules or you?

Accept reason:

As a matter of fact, it is the notice at the top of your page that is wrong. I'm not sure why such wording would ever be in such a notice, it is directly contrary to the very idea of allowing IP users that their edits automatically have less value, and they should not be reverted just because they are IP users, ever, on any article. However, you were obviously told something different and therefore are not to blame for this misunderstanding, leaving little choice but to unblock you. Please do review WP:VANDAL before reverting in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at the ArbCom decision, and that actually is what it says. I don't understand that at all, it seems crazy, but I am also not super familiar with that particular case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard for some clarification of this matter. For the moment, I think it would be best for you to act as though the 1RR restriction also applies to IP users, just to avoid an more drama while this is sorted out. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I posted that in the wrong place, it has been moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Beeblebrox. I will do my best to follow the rules, but I must know the rules to do so.

Hi there

Its tough to deal with the toxic editing environment here sometimes. I just noticed that you used "plain ignorance" after someone else said it to you. Don't follow their leads. Some people try to purposefully rile you up so that you ill make. mistake that will get you blocked. Alwys breathe, remember to laugh at the absurdity of it all, nothing lasts forever, and there is no rush. Changes you ave made remain in the article history. Take your concerns about things being deleted to the talk page. Try to stick to talking content and not getting personal on articl talk pages, even if others do. l hope you stick around. Tiamut^talk 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)