| Revision as of 00:59, 20 September 2011 editTimotheus Canens (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:10, 20 September 2011 edit undoTimotheus Canens (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits →September 2011: +ARBPIA noticeNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] (]) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, 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 ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. 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."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] (]) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, 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 ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. 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."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | ||
| :This is for the 1RR violation reported in . ] (]) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC) | :This is for the 1RR violation reported in . ] (]) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
| On a broader note, admins tend to patrol the behavioral lines in all matters related to the Arab-Israeli conflict aggressively. This topic area is rife with interpersonal conflict, and it is therefore imperative that all editors be on their very best behavior. If you do not believe that the paragraph belongs in the article, you may initiate a discussion at the talk page to try to obtain a consensus for your version, or, if that fails, try any of our ] processes. What you may not do, however, is ]. In fact, while the discussion is ongoing, you should not be making any revert at all. | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="width: 100%; background: ivory;" | |||
| | ] | |||
| | | |||
| | The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any expected ], or any ]. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the ] section of the decision page. | |||
| Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> | |||
| |} | |||
| ] (]) 01:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:10, 20 September 2011
Administrative sanctions on I-P articles
Please read the banner "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" at the head of Talk:Demographics of Palestine. You just broke the 1RR restriction, for which can be blocked. Next time you will be reported, this is your only warning. You will probably be reported for disruptive editing soon anyway. Zero 01:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I was 18 minutes short. Whoops.
You are being disruptive if you think you can threaten people who don't have the same worldview as you.Modinyr (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You are being reported for violation of arbitration restrictions on I-P articles. Your case file will appear at WP:AE in a few minutes. You can reply to the charges there. Zero 00:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
September 2011
Notice to administrators: In a March 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 is for the 1RR violation reported in this AE thread. T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
On a broader note, admins tend to patrol the behavioral lines in all matters related to the Arab-Israeli conflict aggressively. This topic area is rife with interpersonal conflict, and it is therefore imperative that all editors be on their very best behavior. If you do not believe that the paragraph belongs in the article, you may initiate a discussion at the talk page to try to obtain a consensus for your version, or, if that fails, try any of our dispute resolution processes. What you may not do, however, is edit warring. In fact, while the discussion is ongoing, you should not be making any revert at all.
|
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page. |