| Revision as of 16:55, 6 August 2014 editTiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 edits →Blocked: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:29, 6 August 2014 edit undoCOD T 3 (talk | contribs)617 edits ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Edit warring at ] == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. </p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> The full report is at ]. ] (]) 00:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason=I would like to alert the admin that the other party involved in the dispute also guilt of the 3 revert rule, is taking advantage of my block to re add the disputed material for the 4th time. I only would like to write a short statement to alert the admin involved in the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that this is happening right now. ] (]) 13:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I actually added another user's edit, not my own, that included links, and I waited about 36 hours before editing: . I did not add a lot of other material that I had added, and that this user had deleted, and do not plan on doing so at this time.] (]) 13:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I still would like to alert the admin ] that you are inserting this disputed statement at the very moment a Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is taking place. That statement was being discussed on the Talk Page and you and that other user just re-added it with no explanation. --] (]) 13:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Proof that user Faustian if violating edit warring rule: | |||
| * ''12:14, 4 August 2014 Faustian 32,850 bytes +578) . . restored last version of User:Alex Bakharev and incorporated subsequent edit by User:John'' | |||
| :::I was not asked to refrain from editing this article at this time and if I was asked to do so by an uninvolved admin, I would comply. I waited over 36 hours before editing. Also, I chose to limit myself to only adding someone else's edit (that you had reverted) while also keeping a third person's edit. I'm not restoring a lot of other reliably sourced info you've been removing, that I had added. Only your reversion of someone else's edit. ] (]) 13:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dude, can you stop writing in my Unblock Request… what the heck is your malfunction? You don't have to explain yourself to me tell it to the Admin. --] (]) 13:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)|decline=Not an unblock request. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=Request to unblock my account, the other user involved in the dispute again inserted the highly controversial material into article. I would like to inform the Admins involved in the ongoing Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement process related to this issue, that the other user who is also under consideration for possible sanctions is again in the process of edit warring. I do not intend to edit any articles, just state my concerns to the Arbitration Committee and have it documented. ] (]) 19:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | decline = E-mail them. Please do not use this template for anything other than an unblock request which addresses your behavior. ] ] 20:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| *As it says in big black letters, '''Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.'''. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for RfC on Blue Army page. == | |||
| @] if possible I would like to request assistance in setting up a RfC regarding the Encyclopedia Judaica statement added by user Faustian. This statement is very questionable because the claim it makes simply can not be proven, it's simply a speculative comment. Also, the article has an Undue Weight tag, yet the user keeps adding material related only to one issue. I'm actually a bit discouraged why no admin steped in to remind user Faustian, that such a rule exists and should be enforced. Yet, because I'm a new user my claims somehow are not valid. In any case if possible please assist in setting up a proper RfC for the disputed EJ statement, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. --] (]) 16:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] that was a rather cowardly and malicious reply. Please see my below statement, hopefully I'm able to discredit your self righteousness and other admins like you. The statement below is not offensive, but I ask some very legitimate question about the process. --] (]) 17:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], I see that you did not respond to my comment, I assume that's because you are a coward, writing nasty statements on people's talk page who are blocked. No shit Sherlock, I know you don't have to assist in the RfC. So, you did not have to write that self righteous nerd manifesto on my talk page. In any case this whole RfC quagmire only happened because you can't read the damn comments that were left at the discussion. So, stop playing Wikigames, you're to incompetent to administer anything! Two outside contributors commented none voted, and both raised additional question, and you called a consensus? --] (]) 20:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement == | |||
| @], ] and ] at the moment I'm serving out my 48 hour block, but I would like to address a charge leveled against me by a member of the Arbitration committee. Please see my rebuttal statements below: | |||
| *By Misplaced Pages standards Encyclopedia Judaica is considered a legitimate source, but not a neutral source. So, my objection was against Faustian using a claim made by EJ and writing it in the Misplaced Pages Editorial Voice, as if the Jewish interpretation of the events was the only definitive view of the events in question. User Faustian was reminded by other users on 22:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC) that '''due to the highly controversial and conflicting accounts of the events in question''' this kind of editing style is inappropriate. | |||
| *I would like to remind everyone that the events are controversial, and for someone to accuse me of whitewashing the text, could just as easily be accused of holding a Anti-Polish bias, and trying to demonize the army. I think that anyone that reads the Controversies section will realize just how complex the topic is. | |||
| *Finally, I would like to ask why other users who called me a Jew-baiter or wrote highly offensive statements on in a RfC discussion are not being disciplined, yet a statement I made about the validity of a source is now being twisted in such a was as to paint me as an anti-semite? Indeed, I am very worried about the neutrality of the Misplaced Pages Project, if the questions I just asked are completely disregards. | |||
| *''''''No User:COD T 3 is engaging in original research and Jew-baiting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)'''''' | |||
| Please note that the date of this statement is '''14 June 2014''' nearly two months prior to the statement I'm potentially being banned for '''2 August 2014'''. | |||
| *'''''User Faustian titles a talk page discussion "Blue Army Rapists" on 04:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)''''' | |||
| Yet no admin questions his neutrality or intentions, maybe Faustain holds a potential Anti-Polish bias? I don't think that by WIkipedia standards this was a neutral statement. | |||
| Ladies and Gentelman admins, Thank you for your unbiased honesty in overseeing the Misplaced Pages project! It's been a very informative experience to learn just how the process is being administered, and what kind of material is being allowed to flood a page with no admin noticing even if a '''Undue Weight tag''' is present. But, for the moment it's me that will get blamed for being disruptive to the Misplaced Pages process. --] (]) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 22:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] who cares at this point, a my statements clearly show that this is a '''Cangaroo Court'''… what's the point in arguing with admins that clearly hold a bias and cherry pick the incidents that want to punish while d disregarding others. --] (]) 05:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| I have '''indefinitely ]''' your account because you have ]. For evidence please see the ] sockpuppet investigation. To contest this block please place {{tlx|unblock|''your reason here''}} below. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||