User talk:DMSBel

Semi-Retired

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, DMSBel. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Abortion Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 721 words and 0 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 22:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for notification, not that you'll understand this ArbClerkBot!! Have a cookie all the same :-)DMSBel (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

ANEW

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, who filed it? DMSBel (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a plain violation of WP:1RR. I'll wait a few minutes to see if you have anything to say in your defense at WP:ANEW. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but its not a violation of 1RR, I have explained that I re-made my edit after it was reverted because of a typo in it. The issue is one of an edit conflict, not a breach of 1RR. I'll make my comment on the ANI. ThanksDMSBel (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Abortion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. T. Canens (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Explaination has been given at the ANI, it would be bad faith not to accept it, in light of the fact that I have not left the page changed (ie. I have left the Grimes Report in but only specified the author and fixed the dates of it) and made minor adjustments to the wording, neither have I added any other reports but ony discussed them. Fixing a typo is not the same as edit warring. DMSBel (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You should have taken the hint after the second time your edit was reverted and stopped. I'll also note this isn't the first time you have been blocked for edit warring on that specific article. Even specifying the author and fixing dates, if contested, can be considered edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 07:10, 9 November 2011 (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.

It wasn't contested Tiptoety and you have demonstrated no awareness of what was going on, by suggesting it was. Clueless response. DMSBel (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If reverting your edit, either partially or in its entirety is not considered the same thing as contesting it, what would you call it? Tiptoety ^talk 07:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You where saying if my change was contested, no reasons where given, other than that I had not discussed the change when I most clearly had (as you would see if you looked at the talk page). My revert was to fix a mere typo. Not my fault if other editors are so obsessive that they can't wait a minute or two for that to happen.DMSBel (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither my adding the authors name was specifically contested nor my correcting of the dates. Why would they be? DMSBel (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So I have been blocked for 1 week for correcting a typo, and fixing an oversight by another editor - well,well,well aren't we all jumpy today!! DMSBel (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right, you can not control the actions of other editors (specifically reverting your edits), but you can control the actions of yourself. Instead of doing exactly what you are accusing the other editors or doing, that of kneejerk reverts of your edits without slowing down and waiting a minute two, you should have stopped and thought about attempting to contact those editors on their talk pages or move back to the article's talk page. It is clear from the thread at WP:ANEW that there are many users who do not feel your edits were supported by anything, let alone consensus, on the talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 07:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"you should have stopped and thought about contacting those editors on their talk pages..." - you're still commenting without knowing what was going on - THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I DID DO. I told the reverting editor I was fixing a typo. Clearly whoever took it to ANI, didn't bother to check, or didn't care that I had done so. Said editor who reverted me is constantly making changes without discussion and at times without any summary. Will you go and find out what happened for sanity sake! DMSBel (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is where I said I was going to revert, and explained about the edit conflict: [1] [Refactored above link - As editor who reverted said he has archived that discussion.]DMSBel (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at your edits already, including the one you just linked to. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, and after reading my comment above it's obvious I didn't. You never really discussed anything with NuclearWarfare, you simply told him what you were going to do and did it, despite the fact there was no agreement made and no discussion held. I'm done going in circles with you, you are clearly stuck in your ways which makes it all the more obvious that this block is serving a purpose. You can post another unblock request if you are not pleased with my response. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 07:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still have yet to see where I need permission to correct my own typo's when editing. The ANI seems to have been prompted by bad-faith by an editor with a little history of disputes with others herself. I have no issue with you, continue in a straightline :-). I cannot but go in circles when I am confined on my talk page for correcting a typo. Such a big fuss over nothing. I debate things out on talk pages I don't run to ANI. Let's see if common-sense prevails. DMSBel (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

As I have been given latitude to seek a further review I'd be grateful if this block was reviewed again. If we can't fix a typos what can we do? Someone please review the evidence - talkpage etc. DMSBel (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not about fixing typos - which might have been your intent. It's about reverting, twice on an article you knew was subject to 1RR. Please clearly see the definition of a revert in WP:3RR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 9 November 2011 (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.

Having reviewed the discussion I see I have been in error in regard to MastCell and that it was not he, but NW who specified that my sources be perferably in proximity of 5 years, or at most no earlier than 2001. Neither editor requested I take the Grimes study out, however I did so on the basis of it being of older data 1990 - 1999, with a request in my edit summary for more recent studies. As I cannot comment on talk pages I'll offer apology here to MastCell for the confusion. DMSBel (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Penwhale. Best.DMSBel (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A topic ban, broadly construed, means you should avoid editing anything directly related to abortion, regardless of where it lies. This means, obviously, the medical procedure itself and its consequences, its practitioners and opponents (including movements for and against it), and laws and politics related to it. There's never an actual sharp line around a topic ban: an encyclopedia touches a little bit on everything and, let's face it, everything is related to everything else in some manner.

The actual test is "would a reasonable uninvolved but informed editor consider the edit related to the topic area"; it requires some amount of judgement, but if we had not thought you capable of that discernment we would not have banned you from the topic alone.  :-)

My advice is the same I share with everyone else currently under a topic ban: play it safe. If you even think it's possible someone will raise the edit as a violation of the ban, do at least get a third opinion from someone uninvolved, or even ask an admin who does enforcement or an arbitrator. We welcome good faith inquiries when your intent is to sincerely stay within the lines. — Coren ^(talk) 13:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Coren. Also its indefinite but not appealable? Does that mean it can never be lifted?DMSBel (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, indefinite means just that there is no set date of expiration; "until further notice" in other words. Editors under sanctions may petition to have them relaxed or lifted after enough time has passed to show collaborative editing in other fields. In general, however, appeals are never heard less than six months after the sanction has been placed, and rarely granted before a year has elapsed.

In the meantime I would recommend devoting your efforts on some other area which holds your interests (and hopefully, that is not as politically charged). — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok Thanks Corin.DMSBel (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Blocked under Arbitration Enforcement

Based on a review of your editing since the close of the Abortion arbitration case, and your obvious focus on other editors involved in that case (either as parties or as commenters), it is clear that you have not taken to heart the findings specific to your behaviour, nor have you modified your behaviour and editing style. As a result, I hereby ban you for one year under the discretionary sanctions of the Abortion arbitration case for the continuation of this battlefield behaviour, particularly your editing related to or directed at Orangemarlin (talk · contribs), MastCell (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs) following the conclusion of the Abortion case.

Appeal of this sanction may be made to the Arbitration Committee. As I am acting in the role of administrator for this arbitration enforcement, I will recuse on any non-public discussion of this ban for as long as I remain a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Risker, I have just signed in, I haven't had a chance as yet to look through any discussion that has taken place overnight (I am in the UK so I do need to get some sleep from time to time). I appreciate you don't make your decisions without consideration. As I usually don't have anyone speaking in my support I have to speak for myself quite frequently, especially when behaviour mountains are being made out of molehills. As you can see I had offered a number of apologies though without acknowledgement, as yet I have not had one single apology for attacks, insinuations and smears leveled at me by another editor (you know what I am refering to because you removed them from the talk page where they were made). I don't understand the reference to MastCell, I raised an issue about disclosing Admin. status on userpages, I left his name out of the discussion, but notified him that I was refering to the issue on his userpage - can you tell me how apologies etc. constitute battlefield behaviour, they indicate certainly that conduct was remiss to some degree but I am quick to apologise when it becomes clear to me I have transgressed against another editor I don't wait to be asked, or told to, if it is clear to me what I have done was wrong. It was an interaction ban that was being discussed at AN/I, not a site ban. I'd appreciate it if you reconsidered the severity of the ban, in view of positive contributions I have made to the project, including starting two articles and improvements to several others. DMSBel (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)