| Revision as of 00:56, 27 February 2011 editSlp1 (talk | contribs)Administrators27,803 edits Undid revision 416127805 by Slp1 (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:57, 27 February 2011 edit undoSlp1 (talk | contribs)Administrators27,803 edits add the correct templateNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| 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 --> | 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 --> | ||
| As a result of ], the ] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the ], broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad ], described ] and below. | |||
| *Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. | |||
| *The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. | |||
| *Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. | |||
| *Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently ]), or the Committee. | |||
| These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. | |||
| Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary. | |||
| This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged ].] (]) 00:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:57, 27 February 2011
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Validuz, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Lovetinkle (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. This is the very first article I've finally decided to edit. I don't like agenda-driven information destroying Misplaced Pages.Validuz (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Re Allegations of Jewish control of the media
I'd strongly advise you to read the warning regarding active arbitration remedies on the article talk page, and then self-revert your last edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a pro-Jewish agenda driving most of these pages and Misplaced Pages in general. It's very sad that you're not able to have reasonable discussions when it comes to Israel/Jewish people. Throwing "canard" in the opening statement is 100% biased and wrong. It's essentially using the personal opinion of SOME people and stating it as a fact.
- It would be no different if I went into the article and changed the opening statement to say that it's a "established fact" and not a conspiracy theory. It's not neutral and anyone with a half of a brain and NOT driven by an agenda, would agree. Validuz (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Allegations of Jewish control of the media
Just a tip. That article is under special restrictions imposed by our Arbitration Committee. Those restrictions permit one revert per editor in any 24 hour period. So, you should be mindful of that when editing that particular article. Please note I'm not saying you shouldn't edit the article and I acknowledge that we differ with reference to what should be in the lede. I just don't want to see you get whacked by an Administrator for breaching those restrictions. Best regards, Lovetinkle (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Where was the Arbitration Committee when canard was inserted in the first place? Why is it ("antisemitic canard") the standard? It's 100% an opinion. That's not neutral. Misplaced Pages doesn't exist so that groups of pro-Israeli/Jewish people can slant information to their liking. It's one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages: neutrality. Validuz (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
1RR rule
Enforcement request at . --Noleander (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)