User talk:Someone35: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:44, 6 January 2012

Oops

What is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ch1902 ? You opened an SPI based on something that happened at AE in the topic area you are topic banned from. You linked to things that you are not allowed to be involved with. You should get someone else to do it. If you suspect someone of sockpuppetry in the topic area contact an admin, your mentor, someone else. You can't do it yourself. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why? I haven't edited any page related to the I-P conflict, I only linked to it, that user has never even edited anything that has to do with the I-P conflict... Also I'm only topic banned, why does that mean that I can't report sockpuppets?-- Someone35 16:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to file SPI reports. But in this case you are reporting someone because of something that happened in the topic area. The ongong AE report is in the topic area. I happen to think that people who are topic banned should be able to file SPI reports related to the topic area because Wikipedia needs as many people as possible looking at potential sockpuppetry and a sockpuppet is a sockpuppet no matter what topic area they happen to be in. But based on similar situations that have come up before, that is not how it works. Someone else needs to file the report. I suggest you contact an admin and ask them to clarify the issue for you. You could ask for explicit permission to file SPI reports even if the suspected sockpuppet is active in the topic area. If that isn't allowed you should at least be provided with some means to trigger investigations if you have evidence of sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please copy paste what I wrote into another complaint and say that I asked to check that user's IP and see what user made him?-- Someone35 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:CheckUser. It will only be run when there is good reason to suspect sockpuppetry or hard evidence that indicates sockpuppetry such as technical or behavioral evidence of a connection between accounts. Admins with checkuser permissions won't run it just because someone asks. I wish they would but they usually decline the requests as 'fishing'. A good admin to contact about this is User:AGK because they have been active in the topic area in their admin role, they are familiar with the sanctions/AE/topic bans etc and they are one of the few people with checkuser privileges. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

k, I'll ask him about that-- Someone35 17:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's relevant for you too.[1]--Shrike (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the topic ban

Dear Someone35, it seems you insist to disregard the topic ban. This edit clearly falls under all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, you are banned from. If you self-revert fast enough, you may escape additional sanctions. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Someone35, would you revert yourself please? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't at home, I'll self revert now, but I only reverted an unexplained edit that removes sourced information...-- Someone35 14:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Someone35, topic banned means you can't contribute to the topic area, no matter how good and constructive your contribution is. Please start to realize that, before you get yourself into troubles deeper than you currently are. And thank you for self-reverting. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block

I gave you a final warning just 2 days ago that PI articles are dead to you. You cannot edit them, talk about them or do minor removals of them. This is what a topic ban means. Since you disregarded the topic ban after that warning, I am blocking you for 24 hours. Don't do it again. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

I self reverted myself in the moment I saw ElComandanteChe's message, what's the problem? Also, why can't I ask others to do an edit for me? They're not topic banned...-- Someone35 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that and that's why I gave you 24 hours, not 1 week (escalating from your last block). Why have I blocked you? Because, quite simply you've ignored a direct warning. To me, it looks like you're pushing the boundaries to see what happens, well this is what happens. And the very act of asking someone to undo an edit is violating the topic ban. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was allowed to request an edit... He's not topic banned and he doesn't have to do the edit if he doesn't think it's a good edit so I didn't think there will be a problem with that...-- Someone35 11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting = talking about it = discussions about the topic area, which are covered by your topic ban. If you want to ask someone to revert an edit (or open an SPI, or make a particular point on an AE case, or open an AE case, or anything), then use email. Although my advice would be to worry about that particular topic area less. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then can I ask you now by E-mail to revert that edit?-- Someone35 12:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not email, this is a talk page.

I encourage you to email me about anything you want to discuss, whether it's covered by your topic ban or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

k, check your email-- Someone35 12:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge, I would encourage him that the e-mail function should be used for reporting things such as vandalism and other blatant errors made in articles, not asking someone to do everyday edits that he is no longer allowed to do. As it would be tantamount to off-wiki canvassing to circumvent a topic ban. -asad (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, I am uncanvassable :P But I'll include some advice on that topic when I get a little time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEAT might be one way to look at it but if someone is offering to let the dude know when they interpret a violation or not then it is a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking him to do everyday edits, I only asked him to revert one edit an article-- Someone35 18:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is another violation of your topic ban. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone35, the best thing for you to do is to remove all articles about Israel and the Middle East and related topics from your watchlist. Make pretend they don't exist, because for you they don't. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. I didn't say anything about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I didn't even edit a section that is related to it. I didn't add anything with POV, I changed the wording of the image's caption so it will be more clear (since many people who aren't native English speakers don't know what dismantling means) and I wrote that they are an extremist Haredi group, and they ARE. They're the most extremist Haredi group that exists, so saying that isn't POV pushing. Also, Haredi people aren't related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict so I still don't get why I can't edit about them-- Someone35 08:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to revert this edit, since there's no explanation for the tag? Tourism in Israel isn't related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict...-- Someone35 08:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider a caption related to "dismantling of the state of Israel" and Neturei Karta, a group that believes that sovereignty over the "Holy Land" belongs to the Palestinians in an article about anti-Zionism to be within scope of a topic ban "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed" ? Interesting. Just carry on then and watch what happens to your ability to edit Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that Someone35 is dancing dangerously close, and for no reason, to his topic ban borders, since he is not prohibited from edition articles on Israel, Zionism, Judaism, Jewish extremism, etc., I have to agree with him that technically there is no violation. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what do you think the "Murder and Theft" in the photograph are referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I trust your judgement more than I trust my own, but I'd say that there are additional angles to look at the things here. I'd gladly develop this speculation further, if you wish, but this page will do better without me filling it with the endless boredom of halfpenny psychosophy. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about murder and theft and I didn't change the picture...-- Someone35 17:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question was for Che but you can answer if you want to. If you think the image is unrelated to the conflict then the "Murder and Theft" referred to in the image must be unrelated to the conflict. What is it referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the word "heresy" above these words... They probably mean to "murder and theft" in a religious context, these people don't care about murder and theft in the normal context, they do enough of it to their neighbors in Jerusalem (for example beating up women who don't dress modestly or throwing bricks on policemen, people from other Haredi group and cars who drive near them on Saturday)

k, Nableezy reverted my edit-- Someone35 08:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would follow Malik's suggestion, these articles are dead to you. Testing the boundaries of your TBAN won't reflect well on getting it reduced or removed. --WGFinley (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to contribute to articles on Wikipedia so once in a while I make an edit that some editors think that it violates my topic ban-- Someone35 16:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor

Hey Someone35. As you know from an email, Demiurge isn't around for a bit, and he suggested that I might take over your mentoring in the mean time. Now, I never actually saw a response to that - was wondering if you'd accept me as a mentor? Either way, you need to back down a bit here - you're on a fast track to an indef block.

Don't make edits which could be which are in the vague area of PI articles. at all. even remotely.
Leave Nableezy alone - there is no need for you to talk to him.
Get back to focussing on other things. I'll help you out with you lessons soon. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking him why he reverted my edit for no clear reason and then he probably got mad for some reason and replied in an uncivil way... Also I'm mainly editing articles about Israel so I can't completely stay away from PI related articles/edit

and ok, I think I almost finished the mentoring course-- Someone35 16:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you specifically saying that you will not be adhering to your topic ban? Quite simply, this isn't a choice - you have been deemed disruptive, and therefore must not edit those articles. If you do, you will be forcibly removed from the encyclopedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that I might violate it unintentionally when I'm editing articles about Israel-- Someone35 19:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement

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)[reply]

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."

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 :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-- [[User:Someone35|<span style="border:1px solid silver;;padding:1px;color:#8DB600;text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size:80%;"><span style="color:black">Someone35</span>&nbsp;</span>]] 16:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
+== Arbitration Enforcement ==
+Pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=469981396&oldid=469981097 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.
+<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] To enforce an [[WP:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''30 days'''&nbsp;for violation of your [[WP:ARBPIA]] topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks]] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. [[User:Wgfinley|WGFinley]] ([[User talk:Wgfinley|talk]]) 22:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=349940199#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement March 2010 decision]</span>, 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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|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."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->