Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 12 March 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Mass changes at Israeli settlement articles

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

hello

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Tefillin a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chesdovi_and_Palestinian_edits regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Chesdovi! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Notes

Balady citron, New Jewish Cemetery, Kraków, Moshe Zvi Segal, Abraham Sternhartz, Eliyahu Chaim Rosen, Shlomo Yosef Zevin

Happy Chanukah Chesdovi!

Hello Chesdovi, have a happy, gelt and latke filled Chanukah! -Magister Scienta (talk)

Talk:Alexander Suslin

Hi, just a note that your Talk comment was acted on, but then moved again to something even worse, :(. Anyway good to see you activeish again. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Safed Plunder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibrahim Pasha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Great work on Safed Plunder‎ article Shrike (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Chesdovi. I was glad to add a couple tidbits, but an article on the Black Death massacres in general remains a Wikipedian desideratum. HKT 02:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir

Hi. Any interest to help de-orphan this Hebrew grammarian? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC) ‎

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1834 Hebron pogrom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ashkenasic and Ibrahim Pasha

1517 Safed pogrom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ottoman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A/E

-asad (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Notice to administrators: In a March 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."

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Sorry, this is very specifically issued as a an AE block. As such it simply cannot be overturned here; please follow the instructions in the block message and below. Kuru (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2012 (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.

I have been blocked for making an edit in violation of a topic ban relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That ban prevents me from making edits related to the conflict. Yet nowhere in my edit is there any reference whatsoever to the A-I conflict. Therefore this block is invalid. That there is an external debate between Arabs and Israel on the status of a religious site does not prevent me from making edits on wikipedia about that site so long as any changes I make do not mention events relating to the conflict. If we take Rachels tomb as an example, I would be able to edit on all text, except parts pertaining to actual events in the conflict surrounding the contestion of the site. I would however be able to make edits on text which form part of an argument held by one side regarding the status of the site. That is clear and what I have been led to understand from posts left elsewhere on wikipedia about this. WGFinley has again got confused and enforced a block on an edit which does not violate my ban. When this occured last time he did not ever once explain why he blocked me despite me writing him numerous emails and explaining my postiton at talk. He remained astonishingly silent. How then can he go ahead now again and enforce a block without explanation. He should not be allowed to do so in such circumstances. He also enforced a indef-topic ban on a false assumptions and has never addressed this. This should not be allowed to happen. Chesdovi (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Arbitration blocks can't be overturned by admins; you will have to email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
2. Your topic ban forbids you from editing any pages related to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, regardless of the content of the edit. This means that the block is in fact valid. Note that you were notified of the topic ban and what it applied to, so your argument does not work.

Hope this clears things up. —Jeremy v^_^v 21:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Chesdovi please read WP:AEBLOCK you can mail also ].--Shrike (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy and Shrike. There seems to be a misunderstanding as to the scope of the TB.

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Chesdovi

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Chesdovi (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

3 month block due to violation of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban per this AE report.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Chesdovi

Under the accepted scope of the A-I TB, only edits relating directly to the conflict area are prohibited. The edit in question was not.

• Jeremy, it has been clarified elsewhere that a page like "Template:Mosques in Israel and the PT" is not covered by the TB. Neither is Rachel's tomb off limits to me. Documenting whether the tomb was built as a mosque or synagogue or whether it today functions as a mosque or synagogue is also not covered by the TB. Such things are not deemed sufficiently related to the conflict area to prevent me from editing about them. Chesdovi (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Jeremy, while one purpose of a topic ban is to attempt to rehabilitate a users manner of editing, or “sorts of edits”, the topic ban itself does not address editing style, and it only relates to content. The ban only prevents me from making edits directly related to the conflict. You have unfortunately confused editing which may warrant a topic ban with the actual non-violation of a topic ban, as has WGFinley. While it was originally assumed that any page bearing the Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement would be off-limits to those under ban, it was later clarified that such a designation was not in fact the case. I have noted this clarification in a few places, not least here in another attempt by Asad to get me blocked. This is the second time WGFinley has imposed a sanction on me without explaining why I am in violation of my topic ban. He confidently states it is an "obvious" violation, yet, quite clearly he has wrongly blocked me twice under these false pretenses: He said "The standard is "broadly construed", I don't think I even need to go to broad for this one as Rachel's Tomb is in the West Bank!! A holy site that has also been a Muslim mosque and cemetery? You can't really be serious that you don't think this is falls under the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?" Well, for the purpose of the topic ban, as I have mentioned umpteen times before, Rachel's tomb does not fall under the topic ban. I understand he may not have been aware of this, but I cannot continue to assume that he is acting in good faith. He has simply avoided trying discuss this point with me for clarification of my position. This is not fair or what one expects from those given the task of administration. T. Canens stated one can edit in articles that “deal with Israel/Arab, but not related directly to the Arab-Israeli conflict” so long as "edits do not relate to the conflict in any way.” The only way I can suggest is that the issue here is that my edit was seen to be under "content related" in a permissible article or template, while I sincerely contend my edits are not related, that my edits do not stem from partisan positions in the A/I conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Wgfinley

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Chesdovi

The topic ban explicitly notes that any edit about or on articles related to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict (broadly construed) is verboten. See , which has been extended to indefinite because of his refusal to abide by it. —Jeremy v^_^v 22:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Where has that been said, Chesdovi, and by who? Nothing I have seen thus far suggests any such thing, and you were sanctioned because of those sorts of edits specifically. —Jeremy v^_^v 03:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Chesdovi

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I have copied yours apeal to WP:AE

If you want to respond post here and it will be copied. Regards.--Shrike (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks:

• • Please transfer over the following:

• MichaelNetzer, says "there exists a content dispute about Rachel's Tomb being a Mosque." Admins commenting below have simply not read the discussion that ensued after the previous unjust block issue by WGFinley. Let me set the record straight: There does not exist a dispute about whether Rachel's Tomb is Mosque. A dispute does exist about whether the tomb and ante-chamber ever functioned as a mosque in the 19th-century and in the period between 1948 and 1967. Today there can be no dispute as to what the site functions as. Many East End Jews fondly recollect of what they call Brick Lane Synagogue, but we would not put Brick Lane Mosque in a template about "Synagogues in London", neither would we categorise it a “Synagogues in London.” Plenty of RS may still refer to the building as Brick Lane Synagogue, but for the purpose of the template and category, there is no question that the building would only be categorized as a mosque. Asad does not believe Rachel’s tomb is a former mosque. He thinks it is currently a mosque. I challenge him to explain his position. It is obvious that the term used in the UNESCO text, (which was not a unanimous vote by any means), referred to what Arabs call the site. It did not affirm the current usage of the site. It is so wrong, and I mean so very wrong, of various people here, WGFinley included, to suggest my edits here were based on a partisan slant I wish to enforce regarding the conflict. That is a lie. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have made clear elsewhere. (It was myself who added the name “Bilal ibn Rabbah mosque” to the lead.) I have no time for people who scan material here without having knowledge of the background to this issue. You are all very good at counting my blocks and bans, but had you a real will to be fair and do what is in the projects best interest, you would first question my actions before passing judgment, and you would not be leaving comments supporting the lamentable actions of Asad and WGFinley. Chesdovi (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock