User talk:Someone35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Someone35/Archive 1

FYI[edit]

Your provocative comment on my talk page is a breach of your topic ban, and I have reported you here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Someone35. RolandR (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why provocative? There is a userbox in your userpage saying that you're an anti zionist so I asked you about it, without referring to anything else that's related to P-I conflict-- Someone35  16:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

Pursuant to this AE report your are blocked for 30 days for violation of your WP:ARBPIA topic ban. Further, I am resetting your ban term for one year from today so 6 Jan 2013 now. The next violation of your topic ban will result in an indefinite WP:ARBPIA topic ban.

  • This is the English Wikipedia, messages left on talk pages should be in English lest they be perceived as avoiding scrutiny.
  • Your claim that you didn't think this was a violation of your topic ban is unacceptable, the use of "Anti-Zionist" is not even on the fringe of what could be considered the Palestine-Israel Conflict, it's the center of it.
  • You were previously given multiple chances to redact your edits that were violations of your ban, you were also previously banned, 30 days is the next logical step.
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 30 days for violation of your WP:ARBPIA topic ban. 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. WGFinley (talk) 22:44, 6 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."

You didn't even read my statement, did you?...-- Someone35  06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I think my second bullet point specifically addressing your statement shows otherwise. --WGFinley (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
There were also British anti Zionists in the 40s who thought that Israel belongs neither to the Jews or to the Arabs but to them, as a colony... And User:RolandR is British so he may be one of these guys-- Someone35  14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Also if you're reading this, can you please revert these 2 edits? They are vandalism and remove sourced information 1 2
Yes and its part of the conflict too broadly construed.--Shrike (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Remember we discussed "vandalism" in the mentoring course? Read WP:NOTVAND as well. Just because an edit removes sourced information doesn't prove that it's vandalism. It might be - but it might not be. So it's better not to comment on the edit in that way, but to say why you think the removal was incorrect.
As for what British anti Zionists in the 1940s believed about Israel/Palestine - that would probably be covered by your topic ban too. More to the point, speculating about an editor's identity and beliefs, just because you disagree with some of the edits he has made, is not constructive. You received some quite lengthy advice about this by email on 19th December 2011. Please go and read it again - carefully. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
He has a userbox on his user page saying that he is Jewish and anti Zionist who lives in London... I wasn't speculating anything, I was asking him about a userbox that HE put on his user page-- Someone35  15:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I really wish you would understand this point but you seem to be refusing Someone, Palestine-Israel conflict broadly construed is dead to you. You cannot comment on it, you cannot participate in it, it doesn't matter if it's a user page, a talk page, or a policy page. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist as something you can edit. Your repeated refusal to accept this is leading you down the road to indefinite block. I really don't want to see that, please find another area of the project to get interested in and stay away from anything WP:ARBPIA. You have many great pictures on your page, look to working with images that are outside of the conflict. You can work your way up to Jewish and Israel articles that aren't part of the conflict as well as long as you are careful they are not related to the conflict. Do not continue to test out the fringes and if you have any doubt ask before you edit. There are people here trying to help you, don't refuse the help. --WGFinley (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I kept editing in Wikipedia, as you asked me to do here (see the second part of the edit), and when editing in other topics I violated my topic ban unintentionally 2-3 times (and one time I was just reverting vandalism by someone who removed Gaza city from Tel Aviv's twin cities list)-- Someone35  11:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You did indeed keep editing wikipedia, in areas are relatively close to the topic ban. For example, Tel Aviv being in the area. If you were to carry on editing in completely different areas, South American Sea Lion or Ren and Stimpy or History of Aviation are not going to end up "inadvertantly" violating your topic ban. If you must work in areas around the periphery of your topic ban, you must be EXTREMELY careful so that you don't violate it. "By mistake" is not an excuse. WormTT · (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
So should I edit articles in subjects that I am completely unfamiliar with? The only subjects where I can really contribute to articles are related to Israel-- Someone35  11:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Due to the contentious nature of I-P conflict it is highly regulated, as you've found. If the only area that you can contribute is Isreal, I'd suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for you. WormTT · (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not? Do you want to prevent people from contributing to a free encyclopedia?-- Someone35  12:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Because you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to remain within the confines of your topic ban. I'm all for you editing elsewhere within the encyclopedia, but if continuing to work in areas close to your topic ban which is causing violations by mistake is disruptive. You are cauing issues which are leading to extra work for other editors and if you cannot stop being disruptive you will find yourself blocked for longer periods. WormTT · (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
A grouchy editor could report you for your comment above as a topic-ban violation. You can't talk about anything relating to the subject period. If you want to talk about it, wait for your block to expire and then appeal, but you can't talk about any aspect of the topic area, anywhere on Wikipedia, including your own talk page. Full-stop. -asad (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine, I removed it (other users: see my talk page's history if you want to see what I wrote), but I don't understand why I can't talk about my ban on my talk page, I wasn't referring to any PI article or to a specific user who edits PI articles...-- Someone35  16:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You can talk about your ban if you want to appeal or you want a clarification.--Shrike (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'll wait for an admin to tell me here if I can re write my comment, I don't want to get another ban-- Someone35  18:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

still waiting...-- Someone35  13:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not one who's done much arbcom enforcement, but typically editors are allowed to discuss their bans to allow them to appeal. If you are just going to be griping about it, then there's not much point. What's more, I don't see it being overturned - you may have preferred an interaction ban, and had you not been in an WP:ARBPIA area, that may have been the best solution - but since you had already had a topic ban in the past and then jumped in with both feet causing issues when it was removed, a longer topic ban was imposed. I can ask WGFinley to offer his thoughts if you like? WormTT · (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, please ask him to do so, thanks.
Here's what I removed before: What issues in PI articles have I caused in the past 4 months? That's what I said when I was reported, I wasn't banned because I was being disruptive in PI articles, I was topic banned for having a problem with a specific user that is now, by the way, topic banned as well. I asked the admins why they haven't given me an interaction ban with that user (because the problem is between me and him and not between me and PI articles), but they didn't answer me and just gave me long topic bans even though I didn't make any disruptive edits in PI articles and I even contributed to these articles (guess who started the discussion about Jerusalem's location map?)- Someone35  15:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
When you get a topic ban for an area that doesn't mean you rare only banned from behavior that got you banned. It means you are banned. It means you have repeatedly disrupted the space before and your ban is to prevent further disruption. Again, when trying to appeal a block, going right to WP:NOTTHEM is not a good way to do so. You have been given multiple chances to remediate your behavior even after the ban, you have left very little choice since you refuse to do so. If you were willing to admit to the mistake and vow to stay away from the topic area I might be inclined to lift your block but the TBAN will remain in force. --WGFinley (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Show me one disruptive edit I have made since my first topic ban ended on November 24th. I didn't make any disruptive edits since then and I even contributed to that topic area (for example I started the discussion about the location map of Jerusalem which appeared to be more complex than it looks) and still, I was topic banned even though I haven't made any disruptive edits in PI articles. That's what I said in my statement when I was reported, but no admin seemed to listen to me...-- Someone35  18:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── One last time, you need not make a disruptive edit to violate your ban. If you edit in an area subject to your ban you are in violation. --WGFinley (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You said that I am banned from PI articles because I have disrupted that topic. But I haven't made any disruptive edit, therefore I don't understand why you have chosen to give me a topic ban even though I haven't made any disruptive edits in that topic area. I said that more than once, yet no admin seems to listen to me-- Someone35  12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The violation of topic ban is disruptive by definition--Shrike (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether there was disruption before the topic ban. Someone35 has argued that a 1 year topic ban was unwarrented when an interaction ban with the (since topic-banned) Nableezy would be more appropriate. I do not have an answer to this question. WormTT · (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, Someone talking about his actions that lead to the topic ban and Wgfinley and I talking about his actions after the ban.--Shrike (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not defending his actions post ban either - I agree that they are disruptive by violating the topich ban. That still leaves the question regarding the ban itself. WormTT · (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the only viable option that Someone have is to behave well and not violate his topic ban and then he will will have a good chance that his topic ban will be lifted sooner.--Shrike (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Shrike, I was asking WGfinley why I was given a PI conflict topic ban even though I haven't made any disruptive edits in PI articles, not why I was given a one month ban. The topic ban itself isn't justified.-- Someone35  15:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ample evidence was given in the AE Report. You were clearly engaging in personal attacks and battleground behavior in the topic area. Since your topic ban you have violated it several times, been asked to revert yourself several times and went back to engaging in personal attacks. I'm sorry you can't understand what you're doing is wrong but your continued insistence of no wrongdoing in the face of ample evidence is starting to make me question your competency to participate in the project. Move on to another non-controversial topic area and work on collaboratively with others. --WGFinley (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I personally attacked him then why didn't you give me an interaction ban with him? I didn't make a single disruptive edit in an article since I got my first TBAN on August 24th 2011...-- Someone35  16:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Because interaction bans don't work. --WGFinley (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not?-- Someone35  18:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
...-- Someone35  14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Because of my extensive experience trying to enforce TBANs they create more trouble than they are worth. It is an option rarely used and based on several recent cases one that has fallen out of favor. If you want to appeal your TBAN you may do so on WP:AE after your block expires. --WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I will. An interaction ban with the person I had problems with (Nableezy) will be very easy to enforce since he's inactive on Wikipedia (like all single purpose accounts) since he got his topic ban.-- Someone35  15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Someone35. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.[edit]

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)