Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:43, 10 June 2011

Arbitration enforcement

I have reported you for not complying with the sanctions imposed on you at: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Communicat Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

June 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."

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

196.215.76.234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To have banned me indefinitely from commenting on the said articles, not only at their relevant discussion pages but also everywhere else as well, would clearly have been tantamount to censorhip, and would thus constitute a gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Which is why I find it hard to believe that the Arbcom ruling on comments extended itself to every page and forum of Misplaced Pages.

You may further note my recent comments that resulted in the current one-week block, as also the already existing indefinite topic ban, relate essentially to matters of content concerning encyclopedic value. My comments were meant as statements of fact with a view to systemic improvement of Misplaced Pages. It is regreted that my statements were interpreted as personal attacks, which was not the intention.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=It was and is still my reasonable understanding that I was originally blocked by Arbcom from commenting only at the respective discussion pages of the World War II and Aftermath of World War II articles. It was at those particular discussion pages that the original dispute arose, as arbitrated by Arbcom. That understanding was / is based on the fact it is Misplaced Pages's stated policy not to support censorship. ] states: "On Misplaced Pages, the general concept is that concepts should not be censored, and that media which illustrates such concepts should likewise not be censored, if it has encyclopedic value." To have banned me indefinitely from commenting on the said articles, not only at their relevant discussion pages but also everywhere else as well, would clearly have been tantamount to censorhip, and would thus constitute a gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Which is why I find it hard to believe that the Arbcom ruling on comments extended itself to every page and forum of Misplaced Pages. You may further note my recent comments that resulted in the current one-week block, as also the already existing indefinite topic ban, relate essentially to matters of content concerning encyclopedic value. My comments were meant as statements of fact with a view to systemic improvement of Misplaced Pages. It is regreted that my statements were interpreted as personal attacks, which was not the intention. For the above reasons, I appeal against this current one-week block.  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=It was and is still my reasonable understanding that I was originally blocked by Arbcom from commenting only at the respective discussion pages of the World War II and Aftermath of World War II articles. It was at those particular discussion pages that the original dispute arose, as arbitrated by Arbcom. That understanding was / is based on the fact it is Misplaced Pages's stated policy not to support censorship. ] states: "On Misplaced Pages, the general concept is that concepts should not be censored, and that media which illustrates such concepts should likewise not be censored, if it has encyclopedic value." To have banned me indefinitely from commenting on the said articles, not only at their relevant discussion pages but also everywhere else as well, would clearly have been tantamount to censorhip, and would thus constitute a gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Which is why I find it hard to believe that the Arbcom ruling on comments extended itself to every page and forum of Misplaced Pages. You may further note my recent comments that resulted in the current one-week block, as also the already existing indefinite topic ban, relate essentially to matters of content concerning encyclopedic value. My comments were meant as statements of fact with a view to systemic improvement of Misplaced Pages. It is regreted that my statements were interpreted as personal attacks, which was not the intention. For the above reasons, I appeal against this current one-week block.  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=It was and is still my reasonable understanding that I was originally blocked by Arbcom from commenting only at the respective discussion pages of the World War II and Aftermath of World War II articles. It was at those particular discussion pages that the original dispute arose, as arbitrated by Arbcom. That understanding was / is based on the fact it is Misplaced Pages's stated policy not to support censorship. ] states: "On Misplaced Pages, the general concept is that concepts should not be censored, and that media which illustrates such concepts should likewise not be censored, if it has encyclopedic value." To have banned me indefinitely from commenting on the said articles, not only at their relevant discussion pages but also everywhere else as well, would clearly have been tantamount to censorhip, and would thus constitute a gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Which is why I find it hard to believe that the Arbcom ruling on comments extended itself to every page and forum of Misplaced Pages. You may further note my recent comments that resulted in the current one-week block, as also the already existing indefinite topic ban, relate essentially to matters of content concerning encyclopedic value. My comments were meant as statements of fact with a view to systemic improvement of Misplaced Pages. It is regreted that my statements were interpreted as personal attacks, which was not the intention. For the above reasons, I appeal against this current one-week block.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock