User talk:2A1ZA

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Continued edit warring at Turkey

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

You are continuing to revert in support of the material about decentralization that was originally reported at WP:AN3 on 13 December. The result of the new complaint is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

2A1ZA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The Admnin blocking me here had in 14 December ruled me (as well as another User) not to make edits to the decentralization paragraph of the Turkey article without prior talk page consensus. I did spend a significant amount of time and effort in presentation and research to obtain such talk page consensus for restoring a proper version of the paragraph. I did neither violate this ruling of his nor any other Wikipedia rule. The claim that I would have violated 3RR is clearly incorrect, please check edits/time I made at that article. The last thing I did there, however, was creating a third attempt on the article talk page to engage that other User concerned in a good faith discussion. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) You repeatedly reverted to your preferred version. To think that because you believe you were right to do so it therefore somehow doesn't count as edit-warring shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's edit-warring policy. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. (2) You appear to have declared that what you wrote on the talk page constitutes a "consensus version", but I don't see any evidence of a consensus, and at least a couple of editors have expressed the view that the "consensus" is nothing more than what you have decreed to be such. (3) I don't know why you mentioned the so-called "three revert rule", since neither the block log reason nor the block message on this page gives that as a reason for the block. You were edit-warring, and that is the reason given for the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 JamesBWatson, sorry for the late reply, I was on holiday. (2) A consensus proposal was discussed on that talk page for four days, with all previously involved editors as well as others participating, and no single objection was raised against the final proposal (slightly modified in the process, taking up every suggestion); it is not "decreeing consensus" to state the obvious fact that a proposal simply met no objections. (3) The reasoning for the block expressly said "In any case, reverting to enforce an apparent consensus is not listed as an exception to the edit warring rules in WP:3RRNO," thus implicitly making the false claim that I had violated 3RR, which I had not. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the mention of WP:3RRNO implied that the so-called "three revert rule" was part of the reason for the block. Thank you for explaining that, as it answers my comment that "I don't know why you mentioned" the "three revert rule". However, that does not detract from the fact that a block for edit-warring is equally valid whether that "rule" has been breached or not, provided that there has been edit-warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This block can be lifted if you will agree to make no edits at Turkey for one month. I was hoping you would understand what a talk page consensus consists of but I was disappointed to find you declaring your own consensus. One of the parties in the dispute does not have the right to do this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston, the disappointment is all mine. Sorry for the late reply, I was on holiday. I am indeed very, very disappointed to see you once again attacking me with the accusation that I would have "decared my own consensus", while what I in fact did was work for a broad and educated consensus on the talk page, with many hours of research, proposals and contributions to the discussion, and finally after four days, with all previously involved editors as well as others participating, and no single objection was raised against the final proposal (slightly modified in the process, taking up every suggestion), I stated this obvious fact. Yes, I am very, very disappointed about your dealing with that matter, about treating best efforts for an edit progress in line with the rules and policies of Wikipedia the same as another editor's conduct that was a frivolous violation of a range of rules and policies of Wikipedia. Anyway, I would indeed appreciate it if you would remove that block log entry from my account history. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston, as the previous ping might have missed your attention, this is just to notify you that I still hope for a reply from you. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2A1ZA. The idea that you would declare your own consensus simply did not occur to me! In future I will try to issue more bulletproof warnings, where the person can't decide on their own that they have fulfilled the condition. A third party needs to be involved. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the reply, dear EdJohnston, I very much appreciate that. However, this one question of mine is still open, if I can come back to your offer to remove this block entry from my account log if I do not edit the Turkey article for a month. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not currently blocked. Old blocks are almost never removed from the logs. Since the block was imposed per policy and was upheld on appeal, there would not be much reason to have doubts about it. I did not make an offer to remove your block from the logs, I gave you a condition under which you could avoid a block for your past warring ("you should pursue your case on the talk page and you should not edit again unless you get prior consensus on talk"). That issue is now in the past and there is no need to revisit it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston, I was referring to your offer that "this block can be lifted if you will agree to make no edits at Turkey for one month" above, which you made ob 14:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC) after "the block was imposed per policy and was upheld on appeal". I do not know about the usual handling of such cases, but "almost never" is not "never", and I would really be much interested in finding this block (which I personally still perceive as deeply unfair and unfairly tainting my account) removed from my account block log. As you can easily I see, I did not edit the Turkey article since. The reason why to take this maybe somewhat unusual measure would be that the event happened immediately before the holiday season, and I like many others was AFK for two weeks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion I've given an adequate answer and don't plan to continue this. I am declining your request to remove the block from the log. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I take note that the account User:Balki Chalkidiki has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at People's Protection Units. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I welcome you to Wikipedia as well. My only activity on the article mentioned was to twice revert a disruptive edit that inserted propaganda meterial unrelated to the lemma/topic of this article, but apparently only sought to taint it with implicit insinuations. There is even a talk page subsection on the issue concerned, which the inserting editor simply ignores. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: If I am to be blocked from editing I expect the same to be done to this user since his contributions are merely propaganda and POV pushing for so-called Rojava and the murdering organisation in short known as the YPG. Enough is enough. -Human like you (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the fact that you have your own personal opinions on Kurdish politics; but please remember that Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and that edit-warring is not the way to achieve the changes you wish to see. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2A1ZA, I wanted to leave another edit-warring warning, but I see your page is already full of those, with another one received just after you came back from your last block. It seems you have not learned any lesson from your many blocks. I am confident you will be blocked indefinitely pretty soon. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi 2A1ZA! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 12:26, Monday, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Deine Edits im Artikel zur König Fahd-Akademie in Bonn

Hallo! Nach meinen Informationen soll die Akademie geschlossen werden; derzeit ist sie aber noch geöffnet. Hast Du andere Informationen? Ich finde keinen Beleg darüber, dass sie bereits geschlossen wurde. Danke & Gruß --Sir James (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, ich verstehe die Quellen so, dass es noch Lehrbetrieb gibt, aber keine Schüler mehr für das kommende Schuljahr aufgenommen werden, der Lehrbetrieb also in Abwicklung ist. Es ist also mehr als nur Schließung angekündigt und weniger als bereits komplett dichtgemacht und Heizung abgestellt. In Abwicklung. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So kann man das zusammenfassen. Dann solltest Du das aber auch so im Artikel darstellen, finde ich. Gruß --Sir James (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe eine Untersuchung eröffnet.

Hallo und guten Tag.

I've noticed that Balki has some similiarities with previous socks like User:Lord of Rivendell and User: Heimdallr of Æsir. Could you take a look at it please.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma. Thanks. kazekagetr 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work dear User:KazekageTR, I just took note that the account User:Balki Chalkidiki has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am just saying

Dude i think user:Denarivs is a sockpuppet. See his/her edits in Rojava, SDF and so on. 79.137.80.211 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is that user active in German Wikipedia? I think, s/he is. 79.137.76.41 (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Denarivs keep deleting this info about Syriac Military Council from the lead for no reason. It's dubious. 79.137.80.210 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

Hi 2A1ZA,

It seems that there is a content dispute regarding this removal 1. Maybe you want to solve it on the talk page. Bests, 46.221.217.91 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Rebell/Lrednuas Senoroc

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. The long-term vandal who accused @JzG: as "anti-Turkish", has also made similar accusations about you. Check the 09 January 2017 case. 46.221.181.166 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update 'Human like you' / 213.74.186.109

Dear 2A1ZA, good to see you back at work after your wikibreak. In the meantime Human like you, who attacked you several times, got blocked indefinitely. This user has used multiple sock puppets (also the IP's 213.74.186.109 and 176.33.80.23) recently. In particular, via the recently discovered sock puppet 4world2read some months ago this user was reporting you while at the same time discussing and edit warring against you as IP 213.74.186.109. Take care and watch out for further socks! 217.83.254.224 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]