User talk:Prunesqualer/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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.Cptnono (talk) 19:35, 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.

It is my opinion that if you want to fix what you see as bias then you need to follow the proper channels and not disregard the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 21 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.

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. 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.

---

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)

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).

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)

Archive 1