If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top|talk]]) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)}}
If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top|talk]]) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Debresser, you're presumably editing from a computer. A computer that has a program like notepad. You're free to make whatever notes you want there. You are intentionally pushing the limits, and when you are specifically warned against making notes about the topic area, you insist on trying to push just a bit further. And it is legit for no reason. The only thing that would make sense here is if you thought people were watching your notes and would take it upon themselves to make the edits you would prefer, but if that isn't your intention, that these are just notes for yourself for when you get back, then open notepad and save them on your computer. Honestly, I think you got off light with 72 hrs, I would have expected the topic ban to be made longer for repeatedly testing the limits like this. Also, this is an AE block, so it has to be appealed to AE. If you write out the full appeal template I'll copy paste it for you, but it doesnt seem likely that there would be a decision made in under 72 hrs anyway, but it's up to you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 19:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)</small>
:Don't please say I was threatening you. You may not believe I was being both considerate and courteous (hmmph! Nishidani courteous, pull the other leg. . ) I've been taken immediately to AE on the first infraction of a ban, and, in notifying you once, twice or is it 3 times, I was simply exercising restraint. I don't like people being got at, since that's what, in my view, often happens to me, even on frivolous grounds, and it would therefore be hypocritical to stand by silently if it happens to others. That said, the original 3 month topic ban last year, whittled down to a month on appeal, was for continually talking past a consensus, or stalling. The three edits after your ban was passed and you were notified arguably repeated that pattern, i.e., trying to find space to manoeuver when there is no rational margin for moving. I'd suggest you not appeal this at AE (I'll abstain from commenting if you do, and would prevail on Nableezy to do so as well). Just accept GoldenRing's 3 days, which is more than reasonable. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. But thanks for the suggestion. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now have over 10,000 favicons onwebsite, and the number of orphans is down to 11! Debresser (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Special characters
{{Help me}}
Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make [,], and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Wikipedia:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As User:No More Mr. Nice Guy already said: "Nishidani regularly says he's quitting Wikipedia or putting himself under self-imposed topic bans. Those things never materialize."[1] It is a shame some people don't stick to their word. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what did you expect? A month and a day later, he's back with some ridiculous self-indulgent story trying to justify what we all knew would happen. Don't forget to link to the diff where he said my prediction that he'll return was false [2]. Amusing, although not surprising. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, Nableezy admits to conspiring with Nishidani.[3]Debresser (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani has admitted he communicates with Nableezy by email, so that whole thing is just for show. The public offer to meatpuppet was an amusing touch. "You let me know and I'll take care of them" - what a tough guy lol. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting way to put it. It was more of a instead of losing your temper on some hypocritical or otherwise poor editor to tell me where the problems are. So that the hypocritical or otherwise poor editor can be reported and hopefully banned, and not the other way around. nableezy - 19:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is still not okay, in my understanding of how Wikipedia should work. Everybody should make their own mistakes, and editors should not team up. By the way, welcome back to my talkpage, Nableezy. You have always been an esteemed guest here. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Nishidani is back only two days, and already he has managed to escalate things? Or is somebody trying to take revenge for his month-long ban? Debresser (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I filed this report, contrary to what Nishidani advised me to do. And you still insist on blaming him? Huldra (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that he was the polarizing editor in this case. No personal issues with you for reporting me, of course. Debresser (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1RR
The page Israel is under 1RR restriction, if Im not mistaken this is one revert to one page within 24 hours. I suggest you self-revert since you already have an open case at ARBCOM. The correct thing to do would have been to start a discussion on talk instead of edit warring. Seraphim System(talk) 02:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System(talk) 02:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to use more careful language here is because a lot of people will not realize that this area has been inhabited a long time before the term "Israel" appeared in literary traditions, so it is for emphasis and clarity. Expert sources like the Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society do not use the term "Israel" at all, they call it the Levant. It is a pre-history periodization issue, and we should obviously follow the expert source here, because they are considered "Levantine Neanderthals" or "Levantine homo sapiens" [5] Im not sure the neanderthals are discussed, but a brief mention of them could be added as well. Either way, it would be better to also be specific that this area is called "the Levant" when discussing this period, it would probably be less awkward to not mention Israel at all (obvious we can't say the Levant, now modern Israel, because the Levant describes a much larger geographic area.) Seraphim System(talk) 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, self-reverted. Although content-wise you are wrong, and if you do not fix it, I will definitely revert you after 24 hours. The article says clearly, and more than once, "Israel", so there is no reason to say "considered Israel". Debresser (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking back early this year....
I saw the AE request against you. After seeing statements about you, I am a little worried about what will happen to you, but... I won't comment at AE yet. I think you are a very valuable contributor to the topics that you have been interested in. Thinking back at Talk:Yitzhak Rabin#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2017, you seemed cooperative, even when you and I disagreed. Now I'm uncertain, but I hope things will be okay, and I hope you can get along with others, right? --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting here. As you can see, even while this WP:AE post was opened, the article and talkpage discussion are developing. I think that I am a positively contributing editor rather than not. Which does not mean that I agree with the way some editors behave and push their personal points of view on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read the results. Sorry about the t-ban. I think some wikibreak during the time span would benefit you unless you like to seek other unrelated topics. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I have edits in other areas as well. On my watchlist, the IP-area is only about a quarter-third of my daily entries. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
Debresser is banned from all edits and articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for two months
You have been sanctioned for personalising disputes, personal attacks and battleground behaviour
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GoldenRing (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking input from a wider group of editors is good; classifying the input of those already involved based on their perceived politics or ethnicity is not. Don't do it. GoldenRing (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When an article relates to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and all editors commenting are members of WP:WikiProject Palestine, then it makes imminent sense to ask for input from editors who are members of WP:WikiProject Israel, and forbidding to do so does not sound fair. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By all means seek input from other WikiProjects. Editors do that all the time. When you do so, don't tell those who have already commented that you think they all belong to an anti-Israeli faction and their opinion needs balancing out; that is personalising a dispute and battleground behavior. If you can see why that's battleground behavior (as you say at AE that you can) then I'm not sure exactly what you're objecting to. Appealing is absolutely your right and I won't discourage you; but when your appeal essentially admits the facts and my interpretation of them and only adds that others were bad too and you think I was hasty, what do you think you're going to achieve? AE action is unilateral; would you have preferred I leave it open for another admin to hand out an indefinite ban? It was certainly on the cards (and may still be, thanks to your appeal). GoldenRing (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Basically we both think we are right. That happens.
Any ban of me from this area is a loss for Wikipedia. I make valuable contributions, the net results of which far outweigh any minor perceived violations. But whatever admins will decide. I have never been too impressed with Wikipedia justice.
I personally like contributing to Wikipedia, making all this knowledge available and in the correct way, for almost ten years now. But I do have other things to do in real life, so if my contributions are not appreciated, I will be just as happy to do something else with my life. Debresser (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notes for after end of topic ban
[6] This tag is not needed: the facts are clear, and the reasons need not be specified, especially not in the lead. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This edit not simply replaces one source by another, but replaces a clear statement from the official website of the subject of the article, with an opposite statement by some POV academic of ill repute. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D. I don't think it wise to comment on I/P edits like this, publicly challenging edits you disagree with in a topic area you are supposed to stay clear of.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nishidani. That is an interesting suggestion. I was acting on the assumption that the restriction does not apply to my talkpage. Much like blocked editors can still (usually) edit their talkpage. Like I did here as well. Do you have any idea if this question has been asked before? Debresser (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dovid. I am not a technical expert, so you should ask an arb. But I did drop the note because I was involved in the issue that led to your sanction, and feel under a moral obligation to alert you. The note was preemptive, in the sense that I wished to nip in the bud forseeable temptations by any other editor to take such talk page I/P comments to AE. Nothing stops you from compiling notes in a file you can upload when the 2 months have expired. I would assume however that 'commenting' on edits made and expression your view as to why they should be reverted, could be read as signaling to editors to act as meatpuppets. That is surely an unintended possible consequence of using your wiki page to kibitz I/P edits, wholly unintended no doubt, but it's in your best interests not to 'feed the beast', as they used to say.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since no editors have acted on my two posts here, as far as I know, that worry does not seem to be an issue. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It really all depends on the admin viewing your page or the AE complaint against you. But in general, a TBAN covers the whole of Wikipedia, including talk pages and you may also be seen as trying to get proxy editors, which is also bad. But you should get clarification from GoldenRing since his ban comments are not clear as most other admins use. Sir Joseph(talk) 15:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I'll ask him. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Sir Joseph on this, Dovid. (The one possible on-wiki work-around might be that you could create a "notes" subpage, not have any links to it, and not tell anyone else about it, so that it really remains functionally equivalent to the file Nishidani described above. But I'd get advice on that, too.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what was unclear in my wording - "all edits and articles" means all edits and articles. There is no exception for your talk page. You should avoid the topic altogether for the duration of your ban, not watch it from the sidelines. So yes, the edits above are a violation of your ban. You can find the relevant policy here; it specifically mentions user talk pages. I'm not going to do anything about it right now, though any other admin who happens by could well take another view and they shouldn't regard this comment as an AE action that they can't undo. Thank you for asking for clarification, but leave the topic alone, please. GoldenRing (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @GoldenRing for your reply. I will not add to this section. I can watch from the sidelines, but should not mention it here. Will do. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Yes, you can watch from the sidelines. Please don't. Take a break. Read a good book. Binge something on netflix. Go on a walking holiday. Whatever floats your boat. Take this as an opportunity to wind down a bit and come back refreshed and level-headed. I can't make you, but that's my advice. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice, but I am in real life a relaxed person, who likes to enjoy the things he does, and the same is true on Wikipedia. ARBPIA-related articles are make up less than a quarter of the entries on my daily watchlist, and I feel comfortable with that. I like following, editing and taking part in discussions. Please also notice that I don't agree with my topic ban, just abide by it of necessity, and do not feel the need to take a break. I could add that a person living in Israel, can not take a break from the real-life conflicts going on in this country, and keeping up to date, including on Wikipedia, is simply part of life. I have enough activities in life, including my dear family, to keep me busy and balanced, and your "Sigh" was a bit judgemental in this regard. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dovid, thank your lucky stars only I notice these things. That is your 4th topic ban infraction, and comes straight after User:GoldenRing's explicit advice above, which you accepted and appear now not to. I think it would be wise to strike out the edits above, just as a token recognition of their inappropriateness. Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, honestly, how hard is it to understand? Stay. Away. Here's three days to get you going. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kosher foods
Please stop removing valid good faith edits on the Kosher foods article. This isn't your personal encyclopedia. Both trichinosis and pigbel (CNE) are diseases which affect Kosher foods. Links to these other pages could *literally* save someone's life. Wikipedia is based on the concept that anyone can add good faith content. Except that isn't true with guys like you around, is it? Stop being an over-protective asshole and let the process work. If someone is initiating and edit war, it is you. WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:POINT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk • contribs)
(talk page stalker) That comment was absurd. If you had added those links to a dozen other food articles at the same time as "Kosher foods", you might have been able to make a case—although I suspect that you'd always violate WP:WEIGHT. But to put it only in that article displays a clear agenda that is simply inappropriate. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which was my point precisely. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosh Hashanah LaBehema
Can we please talk about your massive reversal of a ton of work I put into expanding this stub page (and without any discussion)? I'm sure we can come to some amicable agreement in which the majority of my edits are not simply obliterated. Thank you! -Aharon (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. That will be in another 26 hours, though, as I keep the Shabbat. To start in the mean time: 1. moving this article from its proper name is unacceptable 2. per WP:UNDUE you should not give so much weight to a modern revival (which, by the way, I had never heard of yet). Debresser (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. A gut shabbes and if you are reading this motsei shabbes, a gut vokh. re: 1) I will concede on this point even though in the Mishna, it's Rosh Hashana L'Maaser Behema, and that those who actively observe this festival today are calling it a number of names including RH LaBehemot, RH L'Baalei Chayyim, and Alef b'Elul. Suggestions to how to best articulate the diversity of alias names is welcome. Rosh Hashana L'Maaser Behema is certainly not the only Jewish holiday/festival to be known by different names. re: 2) respectfully, this modern revival is a matter of public, published record, thus the references to articles from the JTA, Forward, etc., making this revival notable per notability guidelines. I'm not saying my edits can't be improved - shgiyot mi yavin ministarot nakeni. Please help to improve them (rather than delete them outright). Thank you. -Aharon (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, thanks! -Aharon (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Rosh Chodesh Elul redirects to Rosh Hashanah LaBehema. That might not have been obvious when you removed mention of the shofar blowing on Rosh Chodesh Elul from the page, along with other related details relevant to Rosh Chodesh Elul. It seems to me that those details are relevant. (In any case, thank you for your work on this page! Chodesh Av Tov!) -Aharon (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That a good point. Let me think about that. Feel free to post your ideas here to discuss them. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Aharon: I have to admit that I didn't fully understand why you included the items around heshbon hanefesh and shofar blowing in the earlier draft that Debresser substantially reverted. Obviously, that all does happen on Rosh Hodesh Elul. But in order for that to relevant to this article, you'd need to make a tie between those items and the specific issues around Rosh Hashana LaBehema (or whatever we're going to call it). For what it's worth, it's a nice idea to picture a parallel between the process of tithing animals and the idea of everyone passing before HKB"H like sheep on Rosh Hashanah. But to include that in this article, I think you'd need a pretty specific source to suggest that the reasonheshbon hanefesh and shofar and selihot in the Sefardi world start on RH Elul is because of Rosh Hashanah LaBehema on that date. I'm inclined to think that it's a congruence of timing, no more. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my studies of Masekhet Rosh Hashanah and Bekhorot, I think the connection is there and fairly clear, if obscure. But that is not the point. As Debresser has correctly shown, the danger is in presenting these insights without transgressing the Wikipedia's original research policy. It's a very easy line to cross, especially when providing details on obscure topics. I really take that to heart. I think probably the elegant solution would just be to create a new section on Rosh Chodesh Elul to include the Rosh Chodesh Elul content. -Aharon (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're saying something similar, and that's especially true if you start introducing a statement of (or even a suggestion of) related causality, which is a relatively strong thing to say. If you had a section on "Rosh Hodesh Elul", and then have a source to support a comment like "Rabbi So-and-so notes some parallels between [the RH LaBehema stuff] and [the Hodesh Elul stuff]", then you don't have a problem, because nobody's trying to claim a causal source, only a parallelism. But you're wise to avoid OR like the plague on something like this. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That sounds like we're reaching consensus on a new section, "Rosh Chodesh Elul" with the content StevenJ81 and I suggest. A meta-issue: I think we should consider moving this conversation to the article's Talk page. -Aharon (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions notice
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
@BU Rob13 And this is related to which edit(s) of mine? Quite useless to refer me to some general guideline and not inform me why you do so. Debresser (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A simple message would have been enough. Familiar with WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS? In any case, see the section below. Debresser (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notice required by Arbcom (in this exact form) for editors in an area covered by DS prior to an editor requesting sanctions against you. --Izno (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed on this article that you've been repeatedly reverting a content change involving the article subject's name. Please take caution and note that the reference used may not be a reliable source; a "family search" cannot be verified nor can we know for sure that the result is of the same person. I also see that other editors have objected to this change. Please do not repeatedly revert this article and change the person's name without discussing the dispute on the article's talk page first. There looks to be a talk page discussion involving this very matter; I highly recommend that you participate. Thanks for understanding :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am already so confused on that article, that I may have reverted editors for being IPv6 editors rather than because of content. Yes, I remember the talkpage discussion, which says to keep it on the safe side, which is Jussie. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Very tasty on this fast day (!) of 9 Av. Debresser (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, at least you can eat one like that today ... צום קל. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But did you or him check if this was 'behasgachah' before eating it? Or is everything kosher anyhow on WP?
Hello Debresser, Warshy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Cats are definitely not kosher, and that is de'oraita rather than derabanan, so the pie would be better. :) Debresser (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had indeed found it, and it is in my collection (I added a link to the collection in the section at the start of this talkpage). But thanks for taking the trouble. I much appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
August 2017
To enforce an arbitration decision and for Violation of your topic ban on the page User talk:Debresser, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
I was apparently blocked for this edit, making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, and as I said very clearly in the edit summary of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far.
If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was apparently blocked for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Debresser&diff=793236571&oldid=792576157 this edit], making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, '''and as I said very clearly in the edit summary''' of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far.<br>
If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top|talk]]) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I was apparently blocked for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Debresser&diff=793236571&oldid=792576157 this edit], making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, '''and as I said very clearly in the edit summary''' of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far.<br>
If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top|talk]]) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I was apparently blocked for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Debresser&diff=793236571&oldid=792576157 this edit], making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, '''and as I said very clearly in the edit summary''' of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far.<br>
If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top|talk]]) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
