| Revision as of 12:42, 18 June 2010 view sourceMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 30d) to User talk:Abd/Archive 16.← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:54, 18 June 2010 view source Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits You have been blocked from editing in enforcement of an arbitration decision. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC) | If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == June 2010 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' for a period of '''1 week''' from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] (]) 19:54, 18 June 2010 (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></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
Revision as of 19:54, 18 June 2010
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | please email me if my attention is required, Abd |
Alternatively, I may not be back at all, more than occasionally, I have no crystal ball, and real life beckons invitingly.
Notice to IP and newly-registered editors
IP and newly registered editors: due to vandalism, this page is sometimes semiprotected, which may prevent you from leaving a message here. If you cannot edit this page, please leave me messages at User talk:Abd/IP.
WELCOME TO Abd TALK
WARNING: Reading the screeds, tomes, or rants of Abd has been known to cause serious damage to mental health. One editor, a long-time Wikipedian, in spite of warnings from a real-life organization dedicated to protecting the planet from the likes of Abd, actually read Abd's comments and thought he understood them.
After reading, his behavior became erratic. He proposed WP:PRX and insisted on promoting it. Continuing after he was unblocked, and in spite of his extensive experience, with many thousands of edits,he created a hoax article and actually made a joke in mainspace. When he was unblocked from that, he created a non-notable article on Easter Bunny Hotline, and was finally considered banned. What had really happened? His brain had turned to Dog vomit slime mold (see illustration).
Caution is advised.
Re: Great Repeal Bill
If you want to recreate it I won't stop you, since information still pops up on it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Bucklin
You may be interested to know that there is a dispute about the Bucklin voting page ongoing. The issues are:
- Can the term "Bucklin voting" comprehend systems which allow equal and/or skipped rankings?
- If so, do such systems meet the IIA and Clone independence criteria?
(One possible answer to either question is that we can't say either way because we don't have relevant citations to reliable sources. In that case, we must choose what we can say.)
Your participation in the discussion might help us attain consensus.
Cheers, Homunq (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI
I've recycled your advice. It gave me an audible chuckle then, and still does now. Cheers, –xeno 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Xeno. Like a stopped clock, perhaps I occasionally get it right. That was a mixture of sarcasm, plain humor, and serious advice; I'm glad that you enjoyed it then, and had forgotten about it completely, which is often true with some of my best work, so I was quite glad, today, to see it. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
As expected
As you expected, I've filed an enforcement request. You can find it at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Abd. Hipocrite (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
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."