Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 04:41, 16 June 2008 (→One week page ban from Muhammad al-Durrah: - reply to Ned Scott). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21

Please add new comments below.

Edit summaries

Please try to keep your edit summaries civil. Saying "loony conspiracy theories" was not. Also, what was this one about? He's not even editing the talkpage. --Elonka 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - that should have been addressed to Canadian Monkey, not Tundrabuggy. It's hard to tell all these SPAs apart... -- ChrisO (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do we need to talk to in order to have your edit privileges revoked? You banned me for 24 hours for "personal attacks" and completely ignored all the personal attacks against me, and now you're attacking others. You are ill suited for the role of impartial referee. Dkendr (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dkendr, it's not at all clear what you're talking about. Could you please provide links or diffs? Thanks, Elonka 14:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not clear?? Look up 8 lines - he's calling me a SPA. You've lost all credibility with me, Elonka. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, Canadian Monkey has a point, though he could express it better. But it is true that he has over a thousand edits on a variety of articles, of which Muhammad al-Durrah isn't even in the top ten. He has definitely participated quite a bit at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, but why do you feel that justifies referring to him as a SPA? I see little resemblance between his editing, and someone like Tundrabuggy. --Elonka 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. 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 logged here.

--Elonka 01:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

One week page ban from Muhammad al-Durrah

ChrisO, I am sorry to have had to take this step, but you were clearly not honoring the restrictions which were placed at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing on June 10. One of the restrictions that I placed, as an uninvolved administrator, was "No reverts". I have also been giving you steadily increasing cautions that your behavior was causing concerns. On June 12, you reverted the article twice, I then told you clearly, "one more revert and you were going under ArbCom sanctions". Since then, I have also cautioned you about incivility in edit summaries, such as when you referred to things as "Loony conspiracy theorising". Then today, I saw that you did another revert. The edit is not labeled as a revert, but it clearly is one, as you cleanly wiped out all intermediate edits, back to your own last version. As such, I am formally placing you under ArbCom restrictions. Specifically, I would like you to avoid the Muhammad al-Durrah article and its talkpage for the next week. At 01:00 UTC on 22 June 2008, you can resume talkpage participation. The article-editing restriction remains for at least 30 days, though it may be lifted sooner depending on your ability to discuss things calmly at talk. --Elonka 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You placed a restriction of .... no reverts? How the hell does that work on a Wiki? Arbcom said you could make restrictions as an uninvolved admin, but that's assuming the restrictions made sense. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing. --Elonka 06:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I did see that page, Elonka, and it's a very bad way to deal with the situation. I'm not particularly interested in what it is that ChrisO or the other user is fighting over, but a "no revert" restriction is fundamentally flawed. As long as an editor adds something with good intentions, you've basically said no one can remove it from that article, no matter how much it may violate our core policies or not.

It's pretty easy to see who's disputing who, and who the main players are here. Why not just restrict them instead of applying a blanket restriction? That's just one possible idea, too, there could be many more that would be much better than "no reverts". -- Ned Scott 04:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Restrict them how? You are welcome to make suggestions at the talkpage. --Elonka 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

please restore

Damage control (electronics) has references to indicate at least a minimal amount of notability & thus doesnt qualify for speedy. Of course, I could simply undelete it myself, but I want to ask you first. (watch out for the guy who tagged it--rather overenthusiastic with his g11's) DGG (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ditto with Direct Scientific, a major company in its field. DGG (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)