User talk:Someone35

User talk:Someone35/Archive 1

Stop being disruptive

Do you remember "stay in the top three sections of this pyramid"?

I removed your comment here. You need to stop being disruptive. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

... I'm obviously not paying enough attention to my watchlist.

What on earth are you doing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's more where that came from [1], [2], [3] and this exchange. Clearly he is going to get his topic ban reimposed if he can't stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is old. Here I was kindly asking him a question. This one is right, he only makes political editing and WP:POV pushing edits.-- Someone35  11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's at least two instances of you "kindly" asking Nableezy a question, which don't look constructive or relevant to me. And one of them was downright rude.

If you insist on getting involved in these type of discussions (and I really wonder why you think it's worth it, did you see the amount of text the Jerusalem map discussion generated without achieving anything at all?), then you must learn to focus entirely on the content under discussion - not on the person you happen to be disagreeing with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Warning. If you make a comment like you just did above (inferring some people are getting paid for the Jerusalem discussion), I will take you to WP:A/E, and I can say with a fair degree of certainty you will have some sort of block/ban imposed upon you for a very lengthy period of time. You have been warned way too much, so you no longer have any excuses. Also, in lew of the very real possibility you may be taken to A/E, I would consider removing this. -asad (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

k, removed it. Although I didn't mention anyone...-- Someone35  15:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

You have been reported to AE. You can see this here. nableezy - 15:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ARBPIA Topic Ban

This is to inform you that you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for one year, expiry 10 Dec 2012 per this AE report.

I encourage you to continue working with your mentor in other topics, unfortunately this one is too volatile for you right now. I hope you will take this constructively and work to become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Take care. --WGFinley (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

revert yourself

You don't undestand that is now forbiden to comment in wp:ae about wp:ARBPIA issuees and nableezy complain is such issue.Revert yourself or you will be blocked.Please hear my advice and grow up!.--Shrike (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I already reverted myself and what do you mean I have no right to comment there?-- Someone35  17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are topic banned from P-I, that means you can't comment on WP:AE concerning P-I matters. --WGFinley (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Last time I got topic banned I did comment on these matters. Also, I'm banned from PI articles, not talk pages (as far as I know)-- Someone35  17:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The ban is clearly outlined in the section above. You are not to participate on WP:AE on reports concerning WP:ARBPIA. --WGFinley (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to re-emphasise "from all articles, discussions, and other content" (my emphasis). So the ban is from articles, and from discussions (which means talk pages, and all of them not just user talk pages), and from other content (project pages, templates, images, anything else you can think of).

Technically, I think Commons is not included in the topic ban, since English Wikipedia is a separate project from Commons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

That's relevant for you too.[4]--Shrike (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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