User talk:DMSBel: Difference between revisions
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
== Blocked under Arbitration Enforcement == |
== Blocked under Arbitration Enforcement == |
||
{{Hat}} |
|||
Based on a review of your editing since the close of the ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion|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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#DMSBel.27s_conduct|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 {{user|Orangemarlin}}, {{user|MastCell}} and {{user|Bishonen}} following the conclusion of the ''Abortion'' case. |
Based on a review of your editing since the close of the ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion|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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#DMSBel.27s_conduct|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 {{user|Orangemarlin}}, {{user|MastCell}} and {{user|Bishonen}} following the conclusion of the ''Abortion'' case. |
||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
::*I certainly don't take issue with the fact the OM had been ill for a time, and I wish him much future good health and no return of any of the problems. What some of us have a problem with though is that many who edit here are not in tip-top health but say nothing, while OM plays to the hilt his medical condition. Well I too was in hospital during the dispute, I have admittance forms, letters and such, notes of painkillers and anti-biotics I was on all here if anyone would like proof (anyone at Arbcom, that is, its no business of any other nosey blighter thankyou). I certainly was not well enough when in hospital, nor had the energy (if I had had a laptop with me) to get in touch with the site. I was glad for the break from it in many ways. [[User:DMSBel|DMSBel]] ([[User talk:DMSBel#top|talk]]) 16:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
::*I certainly don't take issue with the fact the OM had been ill for a time, and I wish him much future good health and no return of any of the problems. What some of us have a problem with though is that many who edit here are not in tip-top health but say nothing, while OM plays to the hilt his medical condition. Well I too was in hospital during the dispute, I have admittance forms, letters and such, notes of painkillers and anti-biotics I was on all here if anyone would like proof (anyone at Arbcom, that is, its no business of any other nosey blighter thankyou). I certainly was not well enough when in hospital, nor had the energy (if I had had a laptop with me) to get in touch with the site. I was glad for the break from it in many ways. [[User:DMSBel|DMSBel]] ([[User talk:DMSBel#top|talk]]) 16:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{Hab}} |
|||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <DMSBel>== |
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <DMSBel>== |
Revision as of 20:19, 3 January 2012
Semi-Retired
Your Arbitration evidence is too long
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
November 2011
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
"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)
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.
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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:
In addition:
For the Arbitration Committee,
|
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC) |
Blocked under Arbitration Enforcement
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <DMSBel>
correct route for appeal is by email to Arbcom
|
---|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, 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).
Statement by DMSBelThough the subject of this AN/I had nothing to do with me initially several of my own comments where eventually brought up in the AN/I as part of a request for an interaction ban.[[4]]. Please Note this section was somewhat refactored from earlier discussion in the first link. I had made a couple of remarks on the editors talk-page, somewhat in jest but perhaps liable to be taken as a bit provocative, and which I acknowledge left a lot to be desired by way of reducing tensions, and which would have been better not made. In any event discussion at the AN/I eventually moved to discussion of interaction bans. For which I was in agreeance as far as that pertained to myself with User:Orangemarlin. I am not aware of any requests for enforcement or discussion having taken place on enforcement of sanctions in regard to my conduct. There are many ways I can help the project, and have in the past done so, and would like to continue as I have time and enthusiasm to. Throughout this dispute little or nothing has been said in regard to positive contributions I have made, or could make. Statement by <Risker>Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <DMSBel>Result of the appeal by <DMSBel>
|
DMSBel (talk · contribs), if you wish to appeal against the imposition of this sanction, the appropriate route is by email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org where the appeal will be considered by the Ban Appeals subcommittee. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- ok thankyou Elen, I don't have an email account set up on wikipedia, can i send email via my ordinary email account?DMSBel (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a standard email address (it's arbcom-l as in lists, not the number 1 btw). Your email will have to go thru a moderation queue, but I'll look out for it and send it an acknowledgement as soon as it does. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok thanks again.DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Email sent.DMSBel (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)