User talk:AgadaUrbanit/Archives/2010/August

3rr

You have just made your fourth revert on Gaza War. If you do not want me to report you self-revert the last one. nableezy - 01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The reverts are as follows:

1. 01:04, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376224881 by Cryptonio (talk) Ooops")
2. 02:16, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376358512 by Cryptonio (talk) Per Talk:Gaza_War#POV_tag")
3. 03:12, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Since the dispute was not resolved it is inappropriate to remove the tag. Removing the tag will not cause the dispute to disappear. Some article are special, no shame about it.")
4. 00:43, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "per Nableezy, avoid WP:WEASEL. Still without solid evidence we can not state is as fact. Sometimes reliable source claim.")

nableezy - 01:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard, you can see this here. nableezy - 01:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess this is reaction to wacky discussion. Good night, nableezy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a reaction to your repeatedly pushing to downplay a significant POV. Bye. nableezy - 01:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Massacre

Re the name "Gaza Massacre", there appear to be three pretty good sources for this name being used in the Arab world. On the other hand, I don't think it's widely used in English. It would seem more appropriate to discuss this name in the body of the article as part of the propaganda war between the more aggressive factions of both the Israeli and the Palestinian side. After all, the World War II article doesn't even mention its Russian name, the Great Patriotic War, though the Russians lost more people than anyone else in the war. --Macrakis (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

striking others comments

If you modify my comments once more I will ask that you be blocked from editing. Do not that. nableezy - 14:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

you are now annoying me, so for here on out any message you make on my talk page will be removed sight unseen. Stay off that page. nableezy - 20:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

please stop annoying me. I dont need talkback messages to a page where I have the most edits. I am obviously watching that page. This should be simple for even you to understand. Leave my talk page alone. nableezy - 18:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this relates to this discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:Tim_Song#1_RR_violation. I would suggest you self-revert if you do not want to be blocked or get a ban from the article. nableezy - 22:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? We had long discussion and I was bold. Then I partially reverted your edit, since it was noted by other editor that only OCL and Massacre in the lede did not reach consensus. Neither is neutral and you could ask festival opinion if you want. Both is neutral also. And wake up Arab World was not a belligerent of Gaza War, so I think it should not be addressed in the lede at all. Respectfully, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On Gaza War there is a 1RR, as pointed out above. Now you've just violated this suggest you self-revert or you'll be reported. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 00:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:JGGardiner said that when Bjmullan change was first applied that you are edit warring. It also might look that you are vandal and sock if you intend to edit war Massacre into the Lede now. And your neutrality user icon looks silly, I would remove it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, must sleep, please don't start the party without me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 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."

what are you doing?

You understand what a revert is, right? You understand what the three revert rule is, right? You understand what a 1 revert rule is, right? You have made 6 reverts in the 24 hours since a block for violating the 1 revert rule. nableezy - 00:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was reverting clear vandal or sock with clean contrib history. (Special:Contributions/TheLastRealOne Special:Contributions/AnotherRealOne) Maybe I should have assumed good faith more. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

this definitely appear like good faith. I missed it earlier AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 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."

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).

AgadaUrbanit/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Tim. Please reconsider. I was acting in good faith. I thought I was reverting clear vandal or sock with clean contrib history. (User:TheLastRealOneThough User:AnotherRealOne) Maybe I should have assumed good faith though.

Decline reason:

Yeah, maybe. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

This is a real shame. I don't think anyone will deny that it was a good assumption that AU was reverting a topic banned editor. Reverting someone who is topic banned is covered by policy isn't it? Reverting is bad, though. Maybe in the future a block could have been avoided if AU could have started with some bureaucracy and opened an SPI before reverting. That sucks since he shouldn't have to but there is a possibility that he was wrong (although the blocking admin himself opened up an SPI). I think this should be taken into consideration if an admission by the blocked editor is made that there were alternatives (albeit it time consuming and slightly more bureaucratic than normal) to reverting. I hate reverts so no worries about some block but reducing it after such an admission might be appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User should make an "admission" that there were alternatives to coming off a block for violating 1RR at an article and then edit warring with six reverts on the same article? No, the user should have learned from his first block, but he didn't. RomaC ^TALK 04:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it could be argued that it isn't considered a revert if it is removal of edits from a banned user. I think since there is a possibility that it wasn't a sock then he should have done an SPI before reverting but I have strong feelings about reverting so assume I am actually being more critical than most editors would be. Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting someone who you think is a banned user is different from reverting someone who is unambiguously a banned user. This case is the former. T. Canens (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read my entire statement?Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did; I probably should have adjusted my indent. I think I meant to address that to the unblock request - which I didn't see before it was declined. T. Canens (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case a week is way too long. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. You totally just got around 1/rr by waiting 24 hours. I can't be too mad at you about it since other users have done everything possible to keep it in with just as much bad form. Still, it would have been nice to remove it without sinking to their level. Probably isn't possible. This is me giving you a hard time over the principle of it. Maybe now they understand how frustrating it is.Cptnono (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AgadaUrbanit_reported_by_User:Nableezy_.28Result:_.29 nableezy - 07:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for three months, as described in this AN3 report. You may appeal the topic ban as provided in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

Hello. I have filed this in connection with a case in which you may have been involved.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)