User talk:Lev Reitblat

Welcome

Hello, Lev Reitblat! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! — e. ripley\talk 11:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Notification of arbitration sanctions

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 administrator and logged here. -- ChrisO (talk)

And as such, since ChrisO is not an administrator, this notice is not effective and I have removed it from the log. Breein1007 (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked the log (before your removing) and found out that ChrisO send this notification notice only to those editors who was against his opinion about Goldstone. Is it possible to punish him for such kind of illegal action?

I don't know. Maybe it's impersonating an admin or something. I'm not sure what you can do about it. Maybe try asking another uninvolved admin. It's certainly hard to work on editing articles with users who do things like that, though. Breein1007 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't make an ass of yourself. The notice is effective. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you an administrator (and not an ass) how can you explain that only part of the editors of Golstone talk got the notice? I hope you add all of them --LReit (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lev. I am an administrator, and probably also something of an ass (you'll have to be the judge of that). You'll have to ask ChrisO why specific editors were provided the notice.

Part of the answer, I think, may be that other editors were notified in the past. You can see a list of editors and the dates they were notified here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. I checked the list, found that the three editors I notified were not listed, and notified them. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is wrong! Check the list of editors notified by HJ Mitchell several hours after your notification and you see that most of them were not previously notified--LReit (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone

You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith

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 administrator and logged here.

• In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy

Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires that if content has been removed because of good-faith BLP objections, consensus must be obtained before it is restored. A majority of editors opposes the restoration of the material you just restored to Richard Goldstone. There is clearly no consensus for its inclusion. Please desist or you will be referred to arbitration enforcement for action. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you continue impersonating an admin I'll refer you to arbitration enforcement for action. The only restriction on editing Richard Goldstone is 1RR--LReit (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about Chris's message that constitutes impersonating an admin; any editor can refer someone to AE. He is correct on BLP policy; 1RR is not the only consideration at play here. Ignore his message if you like, but you might take it as advice worth following to avoid ending up blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You think, ChrisO is correct on BLP policy, I think he is not. The only notification I've got is about 1RR and I follow it--LReit (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to speak for Chris, but I am reasonably sure he was referencing the BLP exception to the rule against reverting an article more than three times in a 24 hour period located here. This restriction generally applies to all Wikipedia articles. There are some exceptions to the rule, however, including: Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. — e. ripley\^talk 14:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I think he was referencing this part of the policies on editing biographies of living people, which states: To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. (emphasis mine) However the above is still good, pertinent information. — e. ripley\^talk 15:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've already read this rule. The only problem arising here that somebody has to define that we have a case of "good-faith BLP objections". If it can be done by an individual editor? by simple majority of editors? by qualified majority? by an admin? If I haven't missed smth in the ddiscussion about Goldstone, the only admin HJ Mitchell taking part in it doesn't agree that we have a case of BLP obligation. This was a reason, why 1RR rule was applied. You can correct me if I'm wrong--LReit (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I was glad to try to help. Some of this is open to interpretation, but generally on Wikipedia something done in "good faith" means something that's not disruptive or vandalism. Something an editor removed out of an honest concern for the appropriateness of the material I think would most likely be upheld by the community as having been done in good faith. Of course people may then go on to disagree about whether or not that concern was well-founded, but that's a different question. To the rest, I believe HJ agreed that the original source was a BLP violation, but seems somewhat open to including sources that reference the conflict that are otherwise reliable. Of course others disagree. — e. ripley\^talk 17:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration enforcement request

Please note that I have filed an arbitration enforcement request concerning your repeated violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. You can read the request at WP:AE#Wikifan12345 et al. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)