This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 5 April 2010 (→My personal appeal to Sandstein: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:42, 5 April 2010 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→My personal appeal to Sandstein: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This userpage has been blanked. If this is your userpage, you can retrieve the contents of this page in the page history. Alternatively, if you would like it deleted, simply replace the content of this page with {{db-u1}}. |
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-blank.svg){kind=link}
February 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Sandstein 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am proud of this block. I am fighting for the right cause! The block only proves one more time my point that Misplaced Pages is non-censored only from one side. To call European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights its working definition for antisemitism and Simon Wiesenthal Center and original research seems kind of strange. Oh yes, and I do not think I could ever stop to call the things with their real names.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- And how dare you to say that I am "mainly here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Misplaced Pages" only because I called an anti-Semite "an anti-Semite" and wrote his name in small! It is he, who was brought here to fight an ideological battle not me. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
Brief block / disruption
All of User:Factsontheground, User:Gilisa, and User:Mbz1 are blocked briefly (12 hours) for disruption for recent behavior in thier editor conflicts.
I am going to be proposing a permanent interaction ban and possibly other topic bans on ANI immediately after posting these notices.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Successful featured picture nomination
 |
Your Valued Picture
 |
- Thank you for the nomination! I've missed on it.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK for List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
|
On March 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Calmer Waters 06:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Ronald Levy
|
|
On March 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Levy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thelmadatter (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Successful featured picture nomination
 |
Successful featured picture nomination
 |
Successful featured picture nomination
 |
Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Transit of Mercury
 |
DYK for Aureole effect
|
|
On March 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aureole effect, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Mifter (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Kohala at the Big Island of Hawaii
 |
DYK nomination of Fata Morgana (mirage)
Hello! Your submission of Fata Morgana (mirage) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smallman12q (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
IF
- If you can keep your head when all about you
- Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
- If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
- But make allowance for their doubting too,
- If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
- Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
- Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
- And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
- If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
- If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
- If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
- And treat those two impostors just the same;
- If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
- Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
- Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
- And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
- If you can make one heap of all your winnings
- And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
- And lose, and start again at your beginnings
- And never breath a word about your loss;
- If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
- To serve your turn long after they are gone,
- And so hold on when there is nothing in you
- Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
- If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
- Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
- If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
- If all men count with you, but none too much,
- If you can fill the unforgiving minute
- With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
- Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
- And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
* Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
'I don't much care where —' said Alice.
'Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat
*'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: 'we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
'You must be,' said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here.
“The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella,
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella”
Arbitration enforcement topic ban (WP:ARBPIA)
Mbz1, this is to inform you that you are made subject to a three months topic ban with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as explained and further specified in this AE thread. This sanction can be appealed as described in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 06:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification,Sandstein.
The sanction was imposed based on this edit of mine: . You wrote in your decision ... "and at any rate misuses the AE process for the discussion of a content dispute, which AE is not for".
When I posted the edit in question I did not have an intend to discuss content. I used the differences from the user contributions to prove the points I made in AE about the administrator being biased to certain DYK nominations, the tendency that did not change after AE was closed.
According to the above I consider the topic ban to be an unfair sanction, and would not mind you reconsider.
Having said this, I'd like to add that, if you believe that the sanction that was imposed on me, will improve the situation on the subject, and the project in general will benefit, I agree to be topic-banned for as long as it takes because what is the best for the project is the best for me.
I would also like to apologize to you for the time you lost responding questions about your decision, and for what I feel partially responsible. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. It is probably very harsh to be accused in unfairness by both sides :) I am sorry, if what I said above, about topic-ban being unfair, has added to the level of your annoyance. The only defense I could think of is that I posted the message to my own talk page versus going to yours :) Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Mbz, as we both know[REDACTED] has its importance, but reality is much stronger. I intend to start some new articles that are unrelated with the topic ban, wouldn't mind to have some help :) BTW, Sandstein said that you can appeal, maybe you should consider it.--Gilisa (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for you message, Gilisa. Being topic-banned is a harsh punishment of forbidden fruit. I was not going to edit any articles on the topic of my ban before I was banned, but I cannot think about editing anything else now because I was banned:) About appealing it said "Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator". So I guess I already did, when I said I consider the sanction to be unfair, and asked Sandstein to reconsider in my prior message here.I hope he responds assuming he's watching my talk page, but it is as far I am going to go with the appeal. I went to the great extend for the matter concerning the articles and DYK nominations, but the ban itself impacts only me personally, and not any Misplaced Pages project, so that's OK.
I will be happy to help you with any articles that are outside of the subject of my ban. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for you message, Gilisa. Being topic-banned is a harsh punishment of forbidden fruit. I was not going to edit any articles on the topic of my ban before I was banned, but I cannot think about editing anything else now because I was banned:) About appealing it said "Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator". So I guess I already did, when I said I consider the sanction to be unfair, and asked Sandstein to reconsider in my prior message here.I hope he responds assuming he's watching my talk page, but it is as far I am going to go with the appeal. I went to the great extend for the matter concerning the articles and DYK nominations, but the ban itself impacts only me personally, and not any Misplaced Pages project, so that's OK.
April 2010
Notice to administrators: In a 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."
This is in reaction to your violation of the topic ban noted above by your edit , as per the reports on my talk page. Sandstein 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- May I please ask to explain me how Rothschild family is connected to the topic of my ban, no matter how broadly construed it is? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your topic ban, as described here, prohibits you from making edits related to the topic, no matter whether the page as a whole can be considered related to the topic. in this instance, the page as a whole is probably unrelated to the topic, but the material that you edited is. Sandstein 14:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding my question. May I please ask you, if this means that I cannot use the words "Zionism" and "Israel" anywhere at any time for the duration of my ban? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your topic ban, as described here, prohibits you from making edits related to the topic, no matter whether the page as a whole can be considered related to the topic. in this instance, the page as a whole is probably unrelated to the topic, but the material that you edited is. Sandstein 14:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are not restricted from using certain words. You are restricted from the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict, whether or not these words are involved. Sandstein 14:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding my question, Sandstein. Below is my personal appeal to you:
- Thank you for responding my question, Sandstein. Below is my personal appeal to you:
My personal appeal to Sandstein
- Sandstein, we both now that neither the article itself, nor my edit have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of my ban.
- Sandstein, everybody is entitled to make an error, but only very few are brave enough and fair enough to admit they did, and fix it.
- It is said "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."
- Please do correct the error!
- And no matter what, thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, you do not believe you made an error by blocking me. That's fine.
- Please believe me,I have absolutely nothing against fair blocks. If I deserve a block, I deserve a block, and I would say nothing.
- Unfair blocks feel very differently.
- I believe you should have had something particular in mind, when you said: "Your topic ban ... prohibits you from making edits related to the topic"
- I know you do not have to do it, but, may I please ask you to engage in the logic exercise with me, and please explain to me in plain English how my edit is related to the topic of my topic ban in your opinion?
- Maybe I will be able to agree with your explanations, and it would make me feeling better about the block.
- Please, Sandstein, help me to understand. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The material that you edited relates to Zionism in the context of the creation of the state of Israel. That is a big issue, to say the least, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sandstein 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for explaining your view at the issue. I am feeling better about the block already :) Now, you just said I may use the words "Zionism" and "Israel". I hope you would agree with me that both those words are "a big issue, to say the least, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". If there were no Zionism, there would not have been Israel, if there were no Israel, there would not have been Arab Israeli conflict. Zionism is always associated with the creation of the state of Israel, and creation of the state of Israel is always associated with Zionism. It is as simple as that. According to the above may I please ask you to change my topic ban's description and to write that the words "Zionism", "Israel" and maybe "The Holocaust" (because, if there was no Holocaust, there would not have been Israel, and, if there was no Israel, there would not have been Arab Israeli conflict) cannot be used during the duration of my ban. May I also please ask you to AGF towards my edit in question and unblock me now. I swear that before I made the edit in question I paused for 15 minutes, in which I was thinking, if it may be considered in any way as the breach of my ban, and the answer was "no". So, if it was a mistake, it was from the lack of the details in the description of the topic ban, and not from a bad faith. I am sorry I made that unfortunate mistake. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- You and your opponents have already consumed too much of everybody's time with your conflict. The topic ban was intended to stop this, and therefore I do not intend to spend one second more on this issue than is absolutely necessary. The ban needs no modification and an unblock is declined because it is not clear to me that you understand that you are not banned from using specific words but from everything that has to do with the conflict; and an edit war with the usual suspects about Zionism and the founding of Israel is pretty much guaranteed to be within the scope of the ban. This is my final communication in this matter. Sandstein 19:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)