Revision as of 12:30, 25 July 2009 editBluemarine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,844 edits →Blogger vs. Reporting← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:37, 25 July 2009 edit undoBluemarine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,844 edits →July 2009Next edit → | ||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
{{unblock|My editing ban was only against editing parts of my own biography. At least, that was my understanding. If you look above, you'll note that I requested an unblock and was told that I am not blocked just banned from editing on the ] talk page. So, I am at a loss to explain why I have been suddenly blocked for making edits to non-related articles. Also the ban was only supposed to be in effect for 60 days. I've made several appeals thereafter. "If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted." The rules regarding participation here seem murky and ambiguous and I don't understand what my status is, but it seems that the quick jump to blocking me is abusive.}} | {{unblock|My editing ban was only against editing parts of my own biography. At least, that was my understanding. If you look above, you'll note that I requested an unblock and was told that I am not blocked just banned from editing on the ] talk page. So, I am at a loss to explain why I have been suddenly blocked for making edits to non-related articles. Also the ban was only supposed to be in effect for 60 days. I've made several appeals thereafter. "If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted." The rules regarding participation here seem murky and ambiguous and I don't understand what my status is, but it seems that the quick jump to blocking me is abusive.}} | ||
:I've backed off my decline; I hadn't realized that the ArbCom ''ban'' has expired. I think a clarification from ArbCom would help resolve whether or not the editing restriction was supposed to be applied to the easing of the ArbCom 1 year ban only, or to the community ban. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | :I've backed off my decline; I hadn't realized that the ArbCom ''ban'' has expired. I think a clarification from ArbCom would help resolve whether or not the editing restriction was supposed to be applied to the easing of the ArbCom 1 year ban only, or to the community ban. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::If you've "backed off" your decline does that mean ban is lifted or do I request another unblock? Please advise.<p><p> | |||
{{unblock|unclear what my current status is and editor Jpgordon has "backed off" his initial decline.}}<p> | |||
::Reviewing administrators, please see the ongoing thread at ] and the soon-to-be-filed ]. I recommend not unblocking Bluemarine absent consensus as to the status of his restriction(s). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | ::Reviewing administrators, please see the ongoing thread at ] and the soon-to-be-filed ]. I recommend not unblocking Bluemarine absent consensus as to the status of his restriction(s). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:37, 25 July 2009
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine motion passed
The Committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Misplaced Pages to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome back mate. Let me know if you need a hand with anything. Cheers, John Vandenberg 10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome back; here's hoping it goes well. John, please watchlist this page. Bluemarine remains under tight resriction and the only userspace he's allowed to edit is his own. He could use the email function, though. Best wishes, Durova 19:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit to user talk:Eleemosynary
Please don't push it, it's best to steer well clear of anything even vaguely contentious and any user with whom you have any past history. We corresponded extensively through the OTRS response system, I am happy to see you back, but I would strongly urge you to keep yourself very carefully in check. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I've just noticed this, which I have now reverted, and I agree with JzG here. That edit is making an implicit accusation that has not substantiated by evidence. If you think you have found a problem, please ask someone else to look at it. John Vandenberg 07:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Dropping by: please abide by the terms of your limited unblock. I stuck my neck out for you because I hoped and trusted you would make a new start on the right foot. Let's get things right this time. Durova 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Colmes.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Colmes.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
File:HannityandColmes.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HannityandColmes.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
unblock
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).Bluemarine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Apologies for my edits earlier this evening. I thought my ban had expired because the arbitration ban had ended. May I have an unblock please? I have been contributing useful material at Wikimedia Commons and would like to have a second chance at this project also. Thank you for your consideration.
Decline reason:
Not directly blocked, and your case is being discussed elsewhere. Stephen 06:04, 18 May 2009 (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.
Matthew, you aren't system blocked apparently because you've been editing at the Matt Sanchez article. Therefore, using the {{unblock}} request is of no use here. However, you are still under a community ban so just because you aren't technically blocked (which you should be since you are under an indefinite community ban) by the system, you are curently not allowed to edit at the English Misplaced Pages. You will need to get with Durova, your mentor, to find out how to go about requesting a community unblock. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 05:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies there; this kind of comes up while I'm multitasking with other things (just put up a featured picture nomination, plus other things going on). We'll be following up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Banned_user_editing; please either post here or email me with any questions or comments. Best wishes, Durova 06:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Bluemarine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want to repeal my community block. The Matt Sanchez article has several factual errors and undue weight and I'd like to contribute as possible.
Decline reason:
Please see Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Appeals_process. {{unblock}} only flags your account in Category:Requests for unblock and administrator who watch that category only deal with blocked accounts or IP addresses. Community bans must be referred to the appropriate community/arbitration noticeboards. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 12:21, 11 July 2009 (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.
- Just to speed things up, please note that you are free to post any appeal directly within the Misplaced Pages:Project namespace without having to relay it through your mentor or another administrator. -- Netsnipe ► 12:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Scott Beauchamp
I was the source to Michelle Malkin that helped debunk Scott Beauchamp. The Fact that the Foner, the phoney editor, recognized this says it all. Matt Sanchez 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Appealing a ban
I believe wp:AE is the place to appeal bans. I suggest you try editing some non-political and non-controversial topics to better get the hang of how things work on Misplaced Pages. Controversial subjects are often heated environments that are difficult and frustrating to navigate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, until your community ban is lifted, you should not be editing any page on Misplaced Pages except your own talk page. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here 07:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked the above editor, Allstarecho to stop harassing me at my talk page and yet he/she continues to do so. Matt Sanchez 09:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
July 2009
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the condition of your unban as set forth at by making edits unrelated to increasing the accessibility of Misplaced Pages to users with handicapping conditions, including but not limited to and . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 07:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Bluemarine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My editing ban was only against editing parts of my own biography. At least, that was my understanding. If you look above, you'll note that I requested an unblock and was told that I am not blocked just banned from editing on the Matt Sanchez talk page. So, I am at a loss to explain why I have been suddenly blocked for making edits to non-related articles. Also the ban was only supposed to be in effect for 60 days. I've made several appeals thereafter. "If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted." The rules regarding participation here seem murky and ambiguous and I don't understand what my status is, but it seems that the quick jump to blocking me is abusive.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=My editing ban was only against editing parts of my own biography. At least, that was my understanding. If you look above, you'll note that I requested an unblock and was told that I am not blocked just banned from editing on the ] talk page. So, I am at a loss to explain why I have been suddenly blocked for making edits to non-related articles. Also the ban was only supposed to be in effect for 60 days. I've made several appeals thereafter. "If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted." The rules regarding participation here seem murky and ambiguous and I don't understand what my status is, but it seems that the quick jump to blocking me is abusive. |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=My editing ban was only against editing parts of my own biography. At least, that was my understanding. If you look above, you'll note that I requested an unblock and was told that I am not blocked just banned from editing on the ] talk page. So, I am at a loss to explain why I have been suddenly blocked for making edits to non-related articles. Also the ban was only supposed to be in effect for 60 days. I've made several appeals thereafter. "If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted." The rules regarding participation here seem murky and ambiguous and I don't understand what my status is, but it seems that the quick jump to blocking me is abusive. |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=My editing ban was only against editing parts of my own biography. At least, that was my understanding. If you look above, you'll note that I requested an unblock and was told that I am not blocked just banned from editing on the ] talk page. So, I am at a loss to explain why I have been suddenly blocked for making edits to non-related articles. Also the ban was only supposed to be in effect for 60 days. I've made several appeals thereafter. "If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted." The rules regarding participation here seem murky and ambiguous and I don't understand what my status is, but it seems that the quick jump to blocking me is abusive. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- I've backed off my decline; I hadn't realized that the ArbCom ban has expired. I think a clarification from ArbCom would help resolve whether or not the editing restriction was supposed to be applied to the easing of the ArbCom 1 year ban only, or to the community ban. --jpgordon 03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you've "backed off" your decline does that mean ban is lifted or do I request another unblock? Please advise.
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Bluemarine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
unclear what my current status is and editor Jpgordon has "backed off" his initial decline.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=unclear what my current status is and editor Jpgordon has "backed off" his initial decline. |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=unclear what my current status is and editor Jpgordon has "backed off" his initial decline. |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=unclear what my current status is and editor Jpgordon has "backed off" his initial decline. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Reviewing administrators, please see the ongoing thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Matt Sanchez part 2 and the soon-to-be-filed request for clarification. I recommend not unblocking Bluemarine absent consensus as to the status of his restriction(s). Sandstein 04:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Why was my request not considered?Matt Sanchez 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did you make it at WP:AE? LadyofShalott 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Request for clarification: Bluemarine
Hello, I have filed a request for clarification regarding your case; see Request for clarification: Bluemarine. If you want to make a statement with respect to that request, please post it below and ask an editor to copy it to the requests page using {{helpme}}. Sandstein 05:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard for me to clarify as I am fairly confused myself. I thought the ban was a community ban and therefore prevented me from posting to the Matt Sanchez talk page. I edited elsewhere. I believe the edits were in good faith, but was banned again. So, I don't really understand or follow the minutia of all that has gone on. Sorry. {{helpme}} Matt Sanchez 07:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- A community ban is exactly that, a community ban.. which means you aren't to edit anywhere except on your own talk page. Durova even told you this back in May. Did you email Durova yesterday and ask her what the status of your community ban was, before you made 6 edits yesterday? Since Durova told you in May that your community ban was still in force and to not edit anywhere but on your own talk page, has anyone told you since then that the community ban was lifted? No, no one told you this since you were last told in May so therefore, you should not have been editing anywhere but on your own talk page. And before you attack me again by saying I am harassing you, please note that I just supported in the discussion at Request for clarification: Bluemarine, the lifting of your community ban. Let me say this again: I just supported the lifting of your community ban which you can read for yourself at Request for clarification: Bluemarine. All I'm asking is that you abide by the restrictions placed on you until you are specifically told otherwise. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here 08:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard for me to clarify as I am fairly confused myself. I thought the ban was a community ban and therefore prevented me from posting to the Matt Sanchez talk page. I edited elsewhere. I believe the edits were in good faith, but was banned again. So, I don't really understand or follow the minutia of all that has gone on. Sorry. {{helpme}} Matt Sanchez 07:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for help! Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse. Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Misplaced Pages's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Misplaced Pages-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry. Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}} |
I'm getting consistently harassed by an editor who has shown a lack of professionalism, maturity and good faith. I have asked Allstarecho not to post on my talk page, and yet he/she has consistently done so in an antagonizing and immature manner. Please advise.
- I need help filing a complaint against Allstarecho. It's become tedious to have someone of his/her character consistently and childishly ignoring and antagonizing me. I think Allstarecho is extremely biased, immature and unhelpful and his/her editiing is one of the reasons why the Matt Sanchez article is in a substandard state.
I've asked Allstarecho repeatedly not to post on my talk page, and yet he has done so to be both antagonistic, unhelpful and malicious. I don't want to have interaction with people of his/her caliber/character/persuasion or standing. Who do I direct my complaint to? The sooner biased, unqualified and contentious editors like Allstarecho are banned from the Matt Sanchez article, the better for all involved. Two years of this petty back and forth is disgraceful. Please use a more specific OTRS template. See the Template:OTRS or below for available templates. Template:OTRS could refer to one of several templates related to the OTRS system. Instead of using this template, use one of the more specific templates listed below.
Commonly-used OTRS templates
{{OTRS pending}}
: Added when an email has been sent to OTRS{{OTRS permission}}
: Permission received via OTRS{{OTRS ticket}}
: Provides a link to an OTRS ticket{{OTRS talk}}
: For article talk pages, where an issue is raised by OTRS{{OTRS received}}
: OTRS received, but is not sufficient to confirm permission{{Verified account}}
: Added to userpage when an account is verified
See also
- Category:OTRS templates, a more complete list of templates related to the OTRS process
If an internal transclusion led you here, you may wish to change it to point directly to the intended page.
{{Template disambiguation}} shouldn't be transcluded in the talk namespaces. Matt Sanchez 11:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Blogger vs. Reporting
The portrayal of my reporting in Afghanistan and Iraq as "embedded blogging" is inaccurate and a diminution of work here. I am a war correspondent. The attempts of certain editors to obscure this fact are unsupported and may indicate a lack of good faith
I was never an "embedded blogger" in Iraq and Afghanistan, my credential was always as a embedded journalist.
Over the past two years, I've reported for several news agencies, both domestic and international
TV5Monde French
El_Norte_(Monterrey) at Grupo Reforma Spanish
My credential is as an embedded journalist, issued by Centcom. Please note Centcom does not have an "embedded blogger" credential.
I am also credentialed as a journalist for the United Nations and separately by Special Forces--Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force - Afghanistan. Qualification: The UN and Special_Forces_(United_States_Army) are fairly difficult credentials to obtain and being an "embedded blogger" would not suffice.
This is not to "build my resumé" as per some critics, these are just a facts that I can easily substantiate. I'd appreciate if the editors corrected the record at Matt Sanchez. Matt Sanchez 12:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Categories: